[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Businesses Should Be Allowed To Turn Away Gay Customers Businesses Should Be Allowed To Turn Away Gay Customers Posted by: Jon Dougherty March 31, 2015 •New Indiana religious freedom law, which mirrors federal legislation, is somehow discriminatory, say its critics The Left is apoplectic – again – over a new piece of statutory law in Indiana that does nothing more than protect long-standing religious freedoms. To liberals, however, “religious freedom” is not a First Amendment right to be protected, but rather code for bigotry, racism, homophobia, smacking kittens and eating fried foods. On Sunday, the traditional day of Christian worship (in the season of Lent, no less), Republican Gov. Mike Pence said the new law “is not about discrimination” and, furthermore, neither he nor a majority of state lawmakers plan on changing it. The legislation, which Pence signed last week, merely prohibits Indiana laws that “substantially burden” someone’s ability to practice his or her religious beliefs. The definition of “person” includes religious institutions, associations and businesses, but it is being interpreted by some as allowing a baker, for instance, to refuse an order for a wedding cake for a gay couple. In an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Pence noted that the original federal law Indiana’s legislation is modeled after is more than 20 years hold (it was signed by no less a liberal than Bill Clinton after being passed by Democrats in Congress). He also said the law’s purpose is to expand individual rights for those believe the government has impinged on their ability to choose how they want to live their faith. “This is not about discrimination,” he said. “This is about empowering people to confront government overreach.” Sponsored FREE “Gold Leaf” Pocket Bill of Rights [LIMITED SUPPLY] Can you name all 10 of the rights guaranteed to you in the Bill of Rights? Most people can’t, and that’s why for a limited time, I’m offering you a FREE copy. There is no stronger tool that you can carry in your pocket to protect your freedom. some text >> Click here for your FREE pocket Bill Of Rights now << Pence didn’t answer after being asked a half-dozen times whether under the law a merchant could refuse to serve gay customers. But maybe he just felt that the question was a typical liberal set-up. “The issue here is still: Is tolerance a two-way street or not?” he said several times. To liberals, the answer is usually no – if it conflicts with their politically correct worldview. Fox News further reported: "Since he signed the bill into law, Indiana has been widely criticized by businesses and organizations around the nation, as well as on social media with the hashtag #boycottindiana. Already, consumer review service Angie’s List has said it will suspend a planned expansion that includes Indianapolis because of the new law. Pence had already said earlier in the weekend that if lawmakers send him a bill to clarify the new law’s intent, he’ll take a look at it. He also told the Indianapolis Star newspaper Saturday that he’s currently in discussions with leaders of the state Legislature and believes there is a clarification bill forthcoming. But he was adamant about the legislation he just signed. “We’re not going to change the law,” he said. It takes effect in July. Fox News reported that some national gay-rights groups say it’s a way for lawmakers in Indiana and several other states where such bills have been proposed this year to essentially grant a state-sanctioned waiver for discrimination as the nation’s highest court prepares to mull the gay marriage question. But supporters of the law say discrimination claims are overblown. What’s more, they insist it will keep the government from compelling people to provide services they find objectionable on religious grounds. Choice in America today, obviously, is only those given to you by the PC police. Such legislation would not even have been necessary had the Judicial branch done the right thing and stunted lawsuits by gays aimed at forcing Christian business owners to provide them services, even though homosexuality offends Christian beliefs and sensibilities. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it, how the Left would react to a situation in reverse – if gay business owners were forced to serve heterosexuals they disagree with. Shouldn’t they be able to choose? Should black Would feminist business owners be “allowed” to refuse goods and services to male CEO’s? And so on. The right to choose is a fundamental American right; that the Left constantly agitates for “choice” when the issue is killing babies is as ludicrous as agitating against it when it comes to a class of people they have labeled as “protected” (meaning, the rules don’t apply to them). But there you have it. It may not be in a business owner’s best interests to refuse clients for any reason; it may be not the “nicest” thing to do; it may offend the sensibilities of some people – but that shouldn’t mean the right of said business owner to make that decision should be legislated or sued away, not in a constitutional republic, anyway, especially when said law merely mirrors what has already become the “law of the land” on the federal level. The problem with legislating morality is that there is no end to it. Someone, somewhere, is always going to be slighted by someone else, somewhere else. One person’s choice may seem like discrimination on the surface, at least in this narrow case. And granted, there are laws against discrimination. But the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom is absolute, as it must be, even in an increasingly secular society. Where should the line be drawn in restricting the free practice of religious faith, short of physical violence and human sacrifice? When does religious practice become “discrimination,” if ever? This is why legislating morality is impossible; there are as many variables as there are human beings. An action that one person finds offensive, another finds completely reasonable. Where do you draw the line? How do you even decide where to draw it? Can it even be decided? And if so, can the line change? Why or why not? In this particular case, Christian aversion to homosexuality is well established and documented. And in a nation that unequivocally guarantees the right to observe and practice religious faith, this issue really is a no-brainer. It’s not discrimination when you are acting on what you deeply believe; it only becomes discrimination when you act with malice. Are Christians full of malice, then? Liberals would have you believe the answer is yes. What are your thoughts about this issue? INFORM THE DEBATE below! Poster Comment: When I lived in Chicago, I was in the neighborhood the fags hung out. I spotted a drag queen. I said, "I know what you are!" He, she, it, turned around and said, "You bitch! ROTFLMAO! Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
I don't know why they would want to unless the image of their customers is relevant to their business. I can see why any business' image would not want to become a societal petri dish for the hot issues of the day.
A business should maintain a conscious Veil of Ignorance when it comes to their customer base.
There are no replies to Comment # 8. End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||