Jump to content



Photo

Indiana... wow, stunning


  • Please log in to reply
220 replies to this topic

#41 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:28 PM

Tina, you have me so wrong!  I've been boycotting bigoted businesses for decades.

 

Another  thing, I cannot imagine a gay/straight person dealing with a "business person" that displayed animosity toward me.  

 

Like Grammy said, the dollars are green.

 

If you don't want "gay" dollars, please put it on your door.  I'd like to avoid you too!
 



#42 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:29 PM

Awesome! My religion is still in need of a lay person, a bishop, and a deity. You can have your pick of the jobs.


Seriously? If deity is an option, I'm going with that.

#43 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:36 PM

As the PROUD father of a gay son (yes......I'm EVERY bit as proud of my gay son as I am of my "straight" daughter......my children's "sexual orientation" DOES NOT define them as human beings!!), I'm torn about this legislation. Am I "against" it? YOU D A M N BETCHA.......more so because it hits "close to home." ANY parent with a heart NEVER wants to see their child discriminated (bullied??....you decide!!) against, or have their life made more difficult SIMPLY for loving another human being (is that really so bad??). But by the same token, I feel strongly that, if a taxpaying business owner decides to show his/her "bigoted side," they should have the freedom to do so......I hate the fact that the government deems it necessary to infringe on the free market system. If a bakery (for example) chooses not to bake a wedding cake for my son one day (after he finds a partner and decides to marry), so be it. Will that hurt?? TO THE CORE, NO DOUBT. But I'm a firm believer in letting the free market decide whether said business will survive the bigotry. THAT BEING SAID, my only "problem" with this legislation is the "veil" it allows these businesses to hide under........if you're going to protect these businesses' rights, vowing "religious freedom" (bigotry no matter how you look at it......"religious freedom" is just PC so that all practicing it can feel good about themselves as they walk down the aisle and sit in their pew each Sunday!!), these businesses should be REQUIRED to post signage in their businesses referencing their "religious freedom and their right to refuse service to certain groups / peoples because of religous beliefs / practices." That way, it protects ALL CONSUMERS from trading with known bigots!! After all, many "straight" people are allies to the LBGTQ community and may choose NOT to do business with such bigots IF they know the business owners position ahead of time. So, in my opinion, this legislation should require this information BE POSTED PROMINENTLY AND UP FRONT IN THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS and let the consumer choose. Call it "consumer protection" at its finest........if they want protection of "religious freedom," consumers deserve the same kind / type of protection. Then and ONLY THEN will I be okay with this legislation.
Lastly, this legislation can REALLY open up a Pandora's Box.......where do we draw the line? My daughter is a paramedic......does she have the right to refuse to treat someone that she knows is a religious zealot or a homophobe (after all, she LOVES her brother who is gay!!)? Granted, she's not a business owner, but it's a legitimate question to ask. What about the doctor who owns his / her own practice? Can they refuse to do CPR on a extreme right-wing conservative in need simply because they have different religious views from the extreme conservative (you know........."well, this a-hole's gonna die because MY GOD says to love all people, but he and I do not see eye-to-eye religiously because HIS GOD allows him to discriminate"). Far-fetched?? Probably. Possible? Because of this legislation, ABSOLUTELY!!! My point is, where does it end?
I'll finish by saying this: As many of you know, and based on my posts on the Chatter, I'm a fiscal conservative. I used to be a "social conservative" as well.......that is until my son "came out" about a year ago. And you know what guys?? What a D U M B A S S I was!!!! I was an embarrassment to myself!! It took something like my son coming out to open my eyes. HOW STUPID, AND HOW ASHAMED I AM OF MYSELF FOR THAT!! Yes......I wasn't an "extreme".......but I could probably have been described as a "homophobe." AND FOR WHAT??? BECAUSE TWO HUMAN BEINGS HAVE CONSENSUAL, LEGAL LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER? REALLY?? How screwed up was I???? I'M SO SORRY FOR MY PAST, AND IT TOOK MY SON TO OPEN MY EYES.........THAT'S D A M N SAD, AND I AM ASHAMED OF MYSELF!!! Yes, I've grown as a person and hopefully have become a more caring, considerate human being in the past year........God knows I've still got a long way to go.........but I'm trying to become more and more compassionate. So for those who are "okay" with the "bigotry," try it. Why get worked up over something that (a) has nothing to do with or effects you, and (b) worked up over LOVE.......at the end of the day, THAT'S what it is folks..........LOVE!!! Until I sat down and did some soul-searching on myself, I couldn't see that.......but I do now, thus the reason for my embarrassment over my previous "short-sightedness." And for those of you who think my son's homosexuality is a "choice," you'll NEVER know........sure it's easy to sit back and "arm-chair" YOUR beliefs (whether homosexuality is a choice). But during that period of soul-searching, the "deep talks" I had with my son convinced me without a doubt that this WAS NOT his "choice." It's who and what he is..........AND IT'S LOVE........is that really so wrong????
Rod Daily



Smooch!
  • karen, JHS1982 and JenS like this

#44 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:42 PM

Ummmm . . . as a white chick I don't worry in my day to day living about legal or illegal discrimination.  I can, however, call 'em as I see 'em. 
 
Your point is?
 
Edit to point out that this is directed at Kelley.  To Tina, I don't lose sleep over this crap, but it weighs heavy on my heart.  Legislate that.


No clue what the white chick thing is about.

We're worrying about discrimination in this thread. Discrimination against gays. If discrimination against gays is illegal, how do you know who the bigots are?

#45 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:51 PM

I was just about to vote you The Blonde Goddess for Dave's purposes.

 

That sounds kinda not quite wholesome, doesn't it?

 

"No clue what the white chick thing is about?"  Really?  I'm disappointed.



#46 gettin-at-it

gettin-at-it

    ACCOUNT CLOSED

  • Account Closed
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:54 PM

I'm glad it's 2015 and we're still worried about people's sexuality.  The fact that we even have to have this discussion about legislation like this just goes to show just how far we have to go as a species.  God help us all.


  • JenS and Persona Non Grata like this

#47 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 12:11 AM

:goodpost:  Great post, getting-at-it! 



#48 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 12:27 AM

I was just about to vote you The Blonde Goddess for Dave's purposes.

That sounds kinda not quite wholesome, doesn't it?

"No clue what the white chick thing is about?" Really? I'm disappointed.


I know what white chicks are, I just don't get it in context. There was no claim white chicks were suffering discrimination (but, down with the patriarchy!). We were talking about different discrimination.

Red.

And nice dodge of the question about how you know they're bigots, Red. You've been following politics too much. ;-)

Edited by kelley, 27 March 2015 - 12:29 AM.


#49 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 05:51 AM

The baker believes gay marriage is immoral. There is no right or wrong to that belief. It is his BELIEF. You can condemn it until the cows come home. But just because you hold a different belief doesn't mean he is a bigot. He could just as easily label you as a bigot because you are intolerant of his beliefs.

 

Beliefs are informed from something... and in this case it's the bible doing the informing.  Considering that there are very few references to homosexuality in the bible and there is equal time for other "abominations" those who lie, eat shellfish, have haughty eyes, sow discord, etc.  There's not an outrage to shut down places like Red Lobster... why not?   It just seems to me this is picking and choosing based on bigotry. And mainly because gays and lesbians are starting to get the same rights as all Americans. Pitiful. Bunch.of.Crap.


  • cindiloohoo, Donna and JenS like this

#50 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 06:21 AM

"Losing sleep" over this is a good metaphor because, when I think about this legislation, I don't think about a fictional baker refusing to bake a wedding cake. I think more about a motel clerk turning a same-sex couple out into the night after a long night of driving. Or a pharmacy owner refusing to dispense medication to someone who needs it. Not every community has a chain pharmacy every mile like we do. I think there should at least be some sort of provision which accounts for whether the goods or services being withheld are neccesary vs. optional. Maybe there is. Also, is it only the business owner who may discriminate? Or can it be the manager on duty or server or whoever?

 

Either way, it just makes us look like a bunch of backwards a ssed hicks.


  • cindiloohoo, GrumpyGranny, snowman and 1 other like this

#51 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 06:33 AM

"Losing sleep" over this is a good metaphor because, when I think about this legislation, I don't think about a fictional baker refusing to bake a wedding cake. I think more about a motel clerk turning a same-sex couple out into the night after a long night of driving. Or a pharmacy owner refusing to dispense medication to someone who needs it. Not every community has a chain pharmacy every mile like we do. I think there should at least be some sort of provision which accounts for whether the goods or services being withheld are neccesary vs. optional. Maybe there is. Also, is it only the business owner who may discriminate? Or can it be the manager on duty or server or whoever?

 

Either way, it just makes us look like a bunch of backwards a ssed hicks.

 

Or a Muslim business owner not hiring a Christian...  It's gonna be a wild ride.


  • cindiloohoo likes this

#52 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 07:31 AM

Did Steve Stemler vote on this?

#53 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 07:45 AM

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS
A
NEW
CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY
1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes,
ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders,
regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or
application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted,
adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution,
executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage
may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this
chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute,
ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order,
regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by
citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this
section:
(1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion.(2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding,benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.(b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause.© Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to,a system of religious belief.Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency,instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following:(1) State government.(2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13).(3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision (1) or (2), including a state educational institution,a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following:(1) An individual.(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation,a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that:(A) may sue and be sued; and(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:(i) an individual; or(ii) the individuals;who have control and substantial ownership of the entity,regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion,even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.(b) 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. Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that:(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and(2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person:(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest;the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity.(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following:(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter.(2) Compensatory damages.© In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of Sanction against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.


The way I read it is that they only want people to sue when there is actual damages (such as your pharmacy example) not for the baker or photographer examples that have been all over the country.

I read it as basically: stop using the state to settle petty disputes (such as the wedding stuff where there are literally dozens of competitors).  Not to mention - like you pointed out - a wedding is a want; not a need.    :shrug:  You can get married without all the hoop-la, and in the larger picture of life - does anyone else but you even remember what your wedding cake looked like?

 

There is no reason why you should want to FORCE someone to take your greens.  Someone else wants them - use them!


I also think this was to preempt the inevitable coming lawsuit against a church that would eventually deny marrying a gay couple.


Edited by Tina, 27 March 2015 - 07:58 AM.

  • Persona Non Grata likes this

#54 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 07:45 AM

Did Steve Stemler vote on this?


No, locally he and Ed Clere did not vote yay.
  • kelley and Persona Non Grata like this

#55 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 07:53 AM

Sorry, Kelley, didn't mean to dodge any question.  Hiring practices or treatment of customers become known through media exposure or class action lawsuits.  Once revealed, I simply decline to spend my money at those businesses.  As a straight white chick, I have known misogyny, but I don't feel the bite of discrimination as often as a person of color or gay.  I dislike any discrimination, but, I know that I don't feel it as often as others. 

 

Oh, and I'm going to Light Golden Brown, although I kinda like the Red comment!  LOL!



#56 HadAboutEnough

HadAboutEnough

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 07:56 AM

I will sell to anybody who wants to buy from me.  I don't care what your religion, race, or persuasion is.  I will give the same products and service to everyone.  Visa, Mastercard, Amex accepted. 

 

This law is unnecessary.  I had a supplier that didn't like my personality once (not religion... I know), took my business elsewhere.  He's out of business now.

 

Carry on.


  • IntegrityMatters, cindiloohoo, GrumpyGranny and 4 others like this

#57 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 08:35 AM

Churches deny f

 

I also think this was to preempt the inevitable coming lawsuit against a church that would eventually deny marrying a gay couple.

 

churches already deny marriage to certain people though.  my daughter was denied at southeast christian because her and fiancee were living together beforehand... hence the florida keys beach wedding.



#58 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 08:52 AM

"The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events. We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees."

 

"We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week's men's Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."

 

http://www.indystar....polis/70490096/

 

"Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state's economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years," said Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con LLC.

 

http://www.indystar....-bill/70393474/

 

"We have been an active member of the Indiana business community and a key job creator for more than a decade," Scott McCorkle, CEO of the Salesforce Marketing Cloud division, wrote in a letter to Indiana lawmakers. "Our success is fundamentally based on our ability to attract and retain the best and most diverse pool of highly skilled employees, regardless of gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Without an open business environment that welcomes all residents and visitors Salesforce will be unable to continue building on its tradition of marketing innovation in Indianapolis."

 

"Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination."

 

http://www.thenewciv..._re_out_of_here


Edited by Persona Non Grata, 27 March 2015 - 08:55 AM.

  • Donna likes this

#59 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 09:09 AM

 

churches already deny marriage to certain people though.  my daughter was denied at southeast christian because her and fiancee were living together beforehand... hence the florida keys beach wedding.

I get that. 

 

We all know though that it is truly just a matter of time before someone claims that because they are tax-exempt, they have to perform any and all weddings.  
 

It's legislation through the judicial system.  This law simply says "stop doing that".

Also, Southeast would have married them, but they would have to separate living quarters during the premarital counseling.  So it wasn't that Southeast denied, they just put contingencies on when they would agree. ;)


Edited by Tina, 27 March 2015 - 09:10 AM.

  • CityBoy likes this

#60 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 27 March 2015 - 09:40 AM

I read it as basically: stop using the state to settle petty disputes (such as the wedding stuff where there are literally dozens of competitors).  Not to mention - like you pointed out - a wedding is a want; not a need.    :shrug:  You can get married without all the hoop-la, and in the larger picture of life - does anyone else but you even remember what your wedding cake looked like?

 

There is no reason why you should want to FORCE someone to take your greens.  Someone else wants them - use them!


I also think this was to preempt the inevitable coming lawsuit against a church that would eventually deny marrying a gay couple.

 

Just for the record...all this was added after I "liked" the above post. I don't know how to "unlike" a post. But I would if I could.


  • Tina likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users