Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[DLAbaoaqu]

No you just ruin people financially:



http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/christi...r-gay-wedding/

If they push our people, our people should punch back.

[Cerebrum123]

If they push our people, our people should punch back.

IMO that will just make things far worse.

[DLAbaoaqu]

IMO that will just make things far worse.

Well what should we do? Sit around like a bunch of stuffed dummies and take getting beaten?

[Joel]

You are using a lot of words, in itself the sign of a woolly argument, to express personal views which in my opinion are largely irrelevant to the matter under discussion. The issue is one of civil rights, i.e. the right to full legal, social, and economic opportunity extended equally to all citizens regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. And this includes marriage. AFAIC this is all that needs to be said, the rest seems to be a rather frantic attempt to create problems where none exist.

1) If (for example) bachelors do not get the same legal privileges as married people (e.g. they may be required to pay more in taxes), then bachelors do not have the same legal privileges. The law is not extended equally to all citizens. If equality before the law is important, then that has to be addressed.
2) Equal protection of freedom of association is equal for all citizens. Anti-discrimination laws, if anything, are unequal laws. (And you seem to be declining to engage with my arguments.)
3) Equal social/economic opportunity forced by law is not compatible with equality before the law. They can and do conflict. Your lumping them all together in that one sentence cannot be carried out coherently to its logical conclusions.

[pancreasman]

Well what should we do? Sit around like a bunch of stuffed dummies and take getting beaten?

How about ... vote ... you know, like in a democracy. Consider putting your post in the mouth of Jesus in the sermon on the mount. Does it fit?

[Littlejoe]

How about ... vote ... you know, like in a democracy. Consider putting your post in the mouth of Jesus in the sermon on the mount. Does it fit?

FYI, I think he's being given a time out for his behavior...

[Darth Executor]

IMO that will just make things far worse.

No it wouldn't. Liberals are cowards, start hitting and they'll back down.

Then again we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if idiot conservatives hadn't adopted retarded equality and tolerance mantras and surrendered most industry and all major cultural institutions to them.

[Darth Executor]

How about ... vote ... you know, like in a democracy. Consider putting your post in the mouth of Jesus in the sermon on the mount. Does it fit?

Voting changes nothing when liberal billionaires just buy all politicians.

[Juvenal]

Because you keep doing it. You are not the tweb police or the tweb nanny so get over yourself.

Oh bullcrap. Telling someone they're hyperventilating isn't nannying or policing. I'm not sure what it is, but it's not either of those. I don't care if "nannying" is passing you cash under the table to have you adopt it as your favorite word. If you don't use it the way everyone else does, it don't mean squat.

[Tassman]

Yes it would be sinful for a couple to engage only in foreplay, no its not sinful for a couple to engage in foreplay during the conjugal act. If you believe otherwise provide sources, and no, citing a random catholic website won't constitute a source here.

You're free to play this game of you somehow being a world class expert on Catholicism. I can understand the temptation of wanting to one up me, somehow trap me, but you're not succeeding. You're making yourself look like a fool.

I don't give a fig about what a medieval institution like the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation or sexual foreplay etc. I was merely clarifying your reference to so-called "secondary sex". You initially seemed to imply that it was acceptable but later labelled it a "grave sin".

At the bottom there's going to be some political principles in American politics I disagree with. However I don't see the problem with conscientious objection.

The problem is one of discrimination against a minority group.

Secondly, I hope we can get away with gays using lawsuits to bully Christian business for ridiculous amounts of money. Do you agree that a payment of 150000$ is a ridiculous amount to be payed, for what amounts to be a refusal.

Catholics and other Christians are fully allowed to vote for what they believe in.

So you're basically just saying, that homosexual behavour takes place in animal groups? The reference to evolution is irrelevant, and your sentence would have the exact same meaning if all references to evolution had been removed?

"I see this as being about the behavioural instincts of social species such as that impel us towards community living..."

You're simple talking about the comparison between common animal groups, how they behave, and how we behave?

In other words it does not apply to scholastic metaphysics, in as much as scholastic metaphysics is not engaged merely in pure reasoning, which was one place where Aristotle broke from Plato's philosophy. From pure reason you can't conclude much, except perhaps abstract laws of logic and math.

[Tassman]

Ignoramus. Using armchair philosophy to deny that philosophy is useful.

Nonsense! Philosophy is very useful indeed; it's the glue that holds the scientific edifice together. It ensures self-consistency and prevents false inferences. But it is limited; it cannot on its own arrive at new truths about nature.

1) If (for example) bachelors do not get the same legal privileges as married people (e.g. they may be required to pay more in taxes), then bachelors do not have the same legal privileges. The law is not extended equally to all citizens. If equality before the law is important, then that has to be addressed.
2) Equal protection of freedom of association is equal for all citizens. Anti-discrimination laws, if anything, are unequal laws. (And you seem to be declining to engage with my arguments.)
3) Equal social/economic opportunity forced by law is not compatible with equality before the law. They can and do conflict. Your lumping them all together in that one sentence cannot be carried out coherently to its logical conclusions.

[Sparko]

Oh bullcrap. Telling someone they're hyperventilating isn't nannying or policing. I'm not sure what it is, but it's not either of those. I don't care if "nannying" is passing you cash under the table to have you adopt it as your favorite word. If you don't use it the way everyone else does, it don't mean squat.

It means you tend to stick your nose in and tell other people how they should behave. News: That's the moderator's job, not yours.

[hamster]

Are these cake people refusing to sell gay people cakes or are they just not providing services for same-sex weddings? Because technically anyone can have a same-sex wedding, I would assume they wouldn't provide straight people with a cake with two grooms either

[seer]

Are these cake people refusing to sell gay people cakes or are they just not providing services for same-sex weddings? Because technically anyone can have a same-sex wedding, I would assume they wouldn't provide straight people with a cake with two grooms either

No, any person, gay or not, could come into their shop and buy anything off the shelf. This was about making a new cake specifically for a gay marriage.

[Sam]

Are these cake people refusing to sell gay people cakes or are they just not providing services for same-sex weddings? Because technically anyone can have a same-sex wedding, I would assume they wouldn't provide straight people with a cake with two grooms either

I'm sure bakeries could get by selling same-sex couples cakes with no brides or grooms on 'em. It's possible that they'd have to make such figurines available to buy as accessories with no restriction on combination, of course, but the problem is that these businesses are refusing to sell the cake, not just refusing to put a certain message on that cake.