DescentBB

The now infamous Indiana law that 'discriminated against' homosexuals and has the gay movement hollering and threatening lawsuits against businesses that do not submit has brought up a point or two...



I'm certainly against discrimination- but what happens when...well...NOT just Christians must cater to a 'lifestyle' they don't agree with?

Will muslims also have to cater to the gay 'lifestyle' or be shut down for their discrimination against homosexuals? Will their discrimination against homosexuals be 'overlooked' because muslims are another 'protected minority' of the left?

Is this yet another study in 'Progressive' hypocrisy?

Is your argument that progressives don't think there are Muslim assholes like there are Christian assholes?

gee, some days I am just so envious of those folks in the 'protected minorities'. I mean, life in the US for Muslims, blacks, gays and such is such a picnic, you just have to wonder how straight, white, Christian folks could tolerate the hardships they endure.





oh, and what Vander said.....

Vander wrote:Is your argument that progressives don't think there are Muslim assholes like there are Christian assholes?

Nope. My argument is that progressives are hypocrites.

k. Wake me when Christians refuse service to the divorced.

Vander wrote:k. Wake me when Christians refuse service to the divorced.

Ouch! Burn!

And how exactly would you identify a divorced person, in order to refuse them service? Its not like they are going to order a congratulations on your divorce cake.

Vander wrote:k. Wake me when Christians refuse service to the divorced.

muslims will still not make you your gay wedding cake, pictures, etc.

Progressives do not express their outrage equally for injustices- and never will.

Spidey wrote:And how exactly would you identify a divorced person, in order to refuse them service? Its not like they are going to order a congratulations on your divorce cake.

Right? They look just like us regular people.

ThunderBunny wrote:Progressives do not express their outrage equally for injustices- and never will.

Who does?

Vander wrote:k. Wake me when Christians refuse service to the divorced.

Wake me when two gays get married by a Imam.

Spidey wrote:And how exactly would you identify a divorced person, in order to refuse them service? Its not like they are going to order a congratulations on your divorce cake.

likewise gay people and Muslims........?

Working from the example given, where the guy showed a picture of himself and his gay lover?

My point was…there may well be some who would discriminate against divorced people, if they knew they were divorced.

And another important point, not all Christians wish to discriminate against gays, but it does seem most “progressives” do hold the double standard in tolerating that kind of ★■◆● from Muslims.

Fear?

not aware of any examples of a Muslim run business in the US doing such a thing.....so examples would help. I'm not in the LEAST concerned about what happens in other countries in this regard, just how the public accomodation policies work in my nation. So yes, I would have a serious problem were there other religions choosing not to serve individuals in a publicly accesssable business.

Spidey wrote:it does seem most “progressives” do hold the double standard in tolerating that kind of **** from Muslims.

Fear?

It only seems like it. Muslim representation in America is ~1%. Christian representation is ~75%. Why would you expect equal occurrences of "progressive outrage?" It's not that we tolerate discrimination by Muslims more. It simply doesn't happen as often.

woodchip wrote:

Vander wrote:k. Wake me when Christians refuse service to the divorced.

Wake me when two gays get married by a Imam.

completely irrelevant remark.....that choice is clearly protected under the constitutional separation of church and state. A mosque is NOT a public accomodation.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Vander wrote:k. Wake me when Christians refuse service to the divorced.

Wake me when two gays get married by a Imam.

completely irrelevant remark.....that choice is clearly protected under the constitutional separation of church and state. A mosque is NOT a public accomodation.

muslim cabbies refuse to take passengers that are obviously gay couples. They also refuse service to blind people with service animals that are dogs. Have alcohol with you? You're also out of luck.

By the way - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/18/mu ... gay-games/

Where's the outcry?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Vander wrote:k. Wake me when Christians refuse service to the divorced.

Wake me when two gays get married by a Imam.

completely irrelevant remark.....that choice is clearly protected under the constitutional separation of church and state. A mosque is NOT a public accomodation.

Jumping to conclusions again I see....did I say anything about a mosque?

Two can play that game. How about not doing business with Christians? I mean, it is a choice to be a Christian isn't it? If I were, suppose, a Wiccan, I could selectively choose to not do business with those Witch-killing Christians if I ran a public business according to some of these recent "religious freedom laws". What these new laws say is that it's my right to not deal with those I hate or disagree with because it violates my religious convictions. And that's the issue here isn't it? If only those hated gays would just make the easy choice to change back into heteros, all would be well in the world. What a load of hooey.

TC those new laws were in line with federal laws. So while you are being gulled by the gays who are selectively targeting small christian co.s perhaps you should read what Apple's policy toward gays is and how they want to divest from doing business with Indiana yet have not problem with selling and manufacturing in countries that are openly hostile to gays. So please, try to avoid the hypocrisy as last I check Indiana's law does not condone executing gays.

woodchip wrote:Jumping to conclusions again I see....did I say anything about a mosque?

gee, captain obvious, I just sort of figured you'd get the shorthand. A religious official is not the same as a merchant, legally. Hence the mosque vs storefront shorthand. There, got the concept yet?

callmeslick wrote:not aware of any examples of a Muslim run business in the US doing such a thing.....so examples would help. I'm not in the LEAST concerned about what happens in other countries in this regard, just how the public accomodation policies work in my nation. So yes, I would have a serious problem were there other religions choosing not to serve individuals in a publicly accesssable business.

You didn't watch the video in the OP?

I'm pretty sure Michigan is in the US.

Vander wrote:

Spidey wrote:it does seem most “progressives” do hold the double standard in tolerating that kind of **** from Muslims.

Fear?

It only seems like it. Muslim representation in America is ~1%. Christian representation is ~75%. Why would you expect equal occurrences of "progressive outrage?" It's not that we tolerate discrimination by Muslims more. It simply doesn't happen as often.

Well sure, I guess it’s the old per capita vs. total numbers argument.

tunnelcat wrote:Two can play that game. How about not doing business with Christians? I mean, it is a choice to be a Christian isn't it? If I were, suppose, a Wiccan, I could selectively choose to not do business with those Witch-killing Christians if I ran a public business according to some of these recent "religious freedom laws". What these new laws say is that it's my right to not deal with those I hate or disagree with because it violates my religious convictions. And that's the issue here isn't it? If only those hated gays would just make the easy choice to change back into heteros, all would be well in the world. What a load of hooey.

First of all, I don’t think the religious freedom laws can supersede the national discrimination laws.

Second, good luck getting customers…

In the case of that bakery in the video, that store has its doors open to the public, therefore it cannot refuse to sell the items it has on its shelf to anybody, but in the case of doing custom work…that is a huge gray area.

As I have asked before…and never get an answer to…can a person be forced to do labor that constitutes a breach in their religious beliefs?

Spidey, in a free and open society that doesn't tolerate discrimination against it's law abiding citizens, if a business wants to deal with the public at large, they cannot discriminate, no matter what their religious beliefs are. They will either have some tolerance to do business with the general public, or cease being a public business. If a business wants to become a private entity, then that's their right to be exclusive discriminatory assholes. They can also put up with the bad press and shaming they get too. It's a free country.

woodchip, as for businesses that operate in other countries that are openly hostile to gays, that's just as bad as discriminating against them here. But remember, a lot of these same businesses, like Apple, essentially hire people for slave wages in these third world countries as well. We tolerate that heinous BS too because it feeds our beloved God, "Capitalism", and it's good for profits, even though that practice is intolerable and no one seems to care what goes on in those other countries. But in this country, businesses that operate in the public and for public profit have to follow our Civil Rights laws. That's why this country is better than most other countries and why I would rather live here and not in some damned theocracy, Christian or Muslim.

Spidey wrote:can a person be forced to do labor that constitutes a breach in their religious beliefs?

no, but the employer, if they have one has the right to fire them, if such duties were stated upfront. Private contractors can choose as they see fit, as they are not a public accomodation.

I agree, note I have already stated as much.

But as far as the custom work, one may be doing that sort of thing as a sideline, but the customers still come in the front door…a gray area, because as I stated, everything for sale on the shelves cannot be denied to anyone that enters the business, but custom work gets back to my question.

Should they have to operate a separate outlet for the sideline? Which is in fact contract work.

And thanks for answering, note tc did not.

........

And JFTR tc a public accommodation “is” a private entity, it’s just the type of operating license involved, that binds you to federal law.

don't have enough experience with that sort of niche within the retail environment to have a clue......I think, Spidey, we are in general agreement over the clear cut cases, though. I think I just read some headline that said the family that owned the IA Pizza joint will be millionaires by Easter, at the rate donations and gifts are coming in. This is an odd, and very fractured nation.....

Spidey wrote:I agree, note I have already stated as much.

But as far as the custom work, one may be doing that sort of thing as a sideline, but the customers still come in the front door…a gray area, because as I stated, everything for sale on the shelves cannot be denied to anyone that enters the business, but custom work gets back to my question.

Should they have to operate a separate outlet for the sideline? Which is in fact contract work.

And thanks for answering, note tc did not.

Since your a businessman, you probably know more than me because you've dealt with the laws in your day to day operations, especially at the state level. I'm coming from the opinion, not a legal one, that there should be fairness towards all in a capitalist civil society and that all law abiding people in the public sphere should be served by all businesses without fear of discrimination by those businesses, as long as those businesses have open doors that any person from the general public can walk into from the street, people who typically have the general expectation that they will be served or sold something once they walk in from that public street. But that's just my 2 cents, since I'm no lawyer. That's the way I'm answering your question.

But then you talk about custom work, isn't that a grey area? What about repair shops? Aren't they under the same public accommodation rules since they are performing contract work, like repairing a vehicle, not just selling something off the shelf?

Spidey wrote:And JFTR tc a public accommodation “is” a private entity, it’s just the type of operating license involved, that binds you to federal law.

A little clearer definition of federal law. By the way, since I'm clueless, what type of operating license binds a business to federal law? What about state laws?

Wiki wrote:Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public.

I guess since federal law doesn't specify gender identity as a protected class, state laws have to be passed, which they have in many states. I've noticed that those mostly red states don't believe that gender identity is a protected class. There's no accounting for being close-minded phobic jerks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _ordinance

Spidey wrote:can a person be forced to do labor that constitutes a breach in their religious beliefs?

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious by now.


If a person is interviewed and they find out the job is not inline with their religious beliefs, they can exit the interview right there.

But if a person refuses work based on their religious beliefs after taking the job, they have no room to complain because they agreed to the job at the start.

So no, no one is being forced to do anything. And if the idea is to take the job, then complain that they're being forced into it... they can be let go right there.

Tc, If a repair shop is open to the public, like say…MIDAS then yes they have to take all comers, but the block I work on has 2 auto shops on it, and they both only service by way of recommendation, no walk-ins. (one only does Chinese customers)

I agree with you in principle, and would never discriminate against anyone due to age, sex, color…etc.

But I do pick and choose my customers, and the jobs I will do and won’t do.

The thing for me is…do they have a sign outside, if they do…well then that is an invitation, and you better serve me.

Ferno, I was referring to the self-employed.

Stop following slicks lead.

Spidey wrote:Ferno, I was referring to the self-employed.

Stop following slicks lead.

how the ★■◆● am I "following slicks lead"? Something wrong with you?

Spidey wrote:As I have asked before…and never get an answer to…can a person be forced to do labor that constitutes a breach in their religious beliefs?

No. But I think it can be taken for granted that the chosen product or service of a business, that is not a religious product or service, does not breach the operators religious beliefs.

In the bakery example, baking and selling cakes is obviously not against their faith. Is a wedding cake something of a religious product? Is there religious ritual that goes into the creation of the cake? Though the customer may not, does the proprietor view the wedding itself as a religious ritual and therefore is declining to perform the service because they believe the act to be in sin? I'm willing to afford the benefit of the doubt in such a circumstance. But if that is the case, how are such beliefs applied to all customers? Are all customers investigated to make sure their use of the product does not violate the proprietors religious belief? If not, I think it's discrimination rather than religious freedom.

Ferno wrote:

Spidey wrote:Ferno, I was referring to the self-employed.

Stop following slicks lead.

how the ★■◆● am I "following slicks lead"? Something wrong with you?

The context of the entire thread is business, slick was the first to take a tangent into employees.

Vander wrote: Though the customer may not, does the proprietor view the wedding itself as a religious ritual and therefore is declining to perform the service because they believe the act to be in sin?

Yes, I do believe the baker has the belief that gay marriage is a sin, therefore making the custom cake would also constitute a sin.

At least that's my take on that particular example.

I think the answer is "no" to some of the other questions, and maybe one or two I can't answer.

........

Well, maybe one more I can answer….

No, the person that makes something can’t control how that something is used after purchase. So it would be unreasonable to assume any responsibility if someone commits a sin with a cake.

Well, like I said, I think discrimination can be determined by the selective application of religious beliefs. If it's a strongly held aversion to sin, one would think they would be applicable to more than just gay couples. If they aren't applied to more than just gay couples, are they strongly held? Does he inquire whether or not either participant in a marriage has been divorced? Or has been adulterous? Does he do anything other than note the gender of the participants? (I'm not saying you know these answers, they are rhetorical)

Personally, I think a simple "★■◆● you, you simple minded bigot" would be more rewarding than pursuing legal action. But to each their own.

I don’t think a baker has the legal right to ask such questions, or expect to get answers to such questions.

All they know is what has been put forth.

I also have a hard time understanding why a gay couple would even go to a Muslim baker to make a custom cake in the first place, the last place I would go is to someone of a religion where I even have to ask them to do something distasteful to them, It’s called respect.

But that’s just me, I see things a little differently than most.

Spidey wrote: The context of the entire thread is business, slick was the first to take a tangent into employees.

so responding to your question is "following slicks lead". I see. So if I respond to any questions, on-topic or otherwise, posed by whoever, i'm "following slicks lead".

guess you're guilty of that too. That line of logic is really, really idiotic.

I would think a baker can ask any questions they want. The customer just isn't required to answer.

the last place I would go is to someone of a religion where I even have to ask them to do something distasteful to them

Okay. Are you going to ask every business owner what religion they are before you do business with them?