Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:35 pm

The trouble with that is you can have two people, both having all the same info, and still see it in very different ways. The trick in a discussion is to get to that root worldview difference. Sometimes they can be reconciled, sometimes you have to agree to disagree.
This is tru, although there are times when we can just leave well enough alone and other issues where we can't just agree to disagree. The question is how do you tell which is which? Would agreeing to disagree work in this situation?
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Chozon1 » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:37 am

Yes. It would.

Because, from the start, you have to realize that all internet arguments are inherently useless for changing the world or the other person. You're only involved in a debate for your personal decision to be involved in it.

I always find this helpful considering internet arguing.

If you want to try and change someone's opinions or beliefs, behind a screen as an "adversary" or "opponent" or even "guy who believes the opposite of me" isn't the place to do it. If anything, it works opposite; you go to all the trouble of coming up with words to express an idea, or researching a point, you'll become a more staunch defender of your position.

There comes a point where continuation becomes an almost mindless cycle of repeating the same idea in different words. Which, if I understood him correctly, is what Arctic was saying. Although the way I phrased it isn't quite as kind.

That's the last two scents I'ma put into this, from a personal standpoint.
Image

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:27 pm

There comes a point where continuation becomes an almost mindless cycle of repeating the same idea in different words. Which, if I understood him correctly, is what Arctic was saying. Although the way I phrased it isn't quite as kind.
Yeah you understood correctly. It's true that the two sides of an issue like this probably can't find a way to agree to disagree, because some kind of policy decision has to be made, but the likes of us are not the ones doing it, so once we reach that worldview difference, there's literally no benefit to continuing to argue unless someone can come up with a truly new thing to say.

And by the way, I'm honored that you linked to that post. :)
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:51 pm

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

Image
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
amyjo88
Minecraft Server Admin
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 9:24 pm
Location: MidWest USA

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby amyjo88 » Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:24 pm

and we have the right to avoid businesses run by jerks. If a business owner refuses services based on their beliefs, you can bet that the person is going to post it everywhere and tell their friends. Boycotting, as you mentioned, is easier to organize on a massive scale than ever before. And would probably be WAY more effective than laws.
Generally speaking I agree with this. Unfortunately, since laws and court cases are already happening in various states and are likely to start popping up in others, we can't stick with just this anymore. We have to tackle the issue of what the laws should be. Sure, we can try to say that no laws should be passed and any that have been be removed, but that chances of that happening are almost zero. The second option is just push for laws that favor whatever your side represents and let the chips fall where they may. The third option is both sides come together to try to work out a set of laws that can work for both sides, which is what I have been trying to advocate here.
Yes, it would be. And this is how we know the effort to force businesses into this stuff isn't about justice or fairness, it's about control.
Perhaps it may be, but, I also remember a lot of these same religious people making that argument when boycotts and public protests were used as well. This was the reaction given during the Chick-Fil-A boycotts and the public protests against the CEO of Mozilla. Whatever one's take on whether the protests were merited or not, the point is there is just no way to win with these people. They say the government shouldn't be involved in making decisions and let the people or free market decide. Fair enough, but when the public does so without any government involvement of any sort they say the public shouldn't do anything either, even though the public has a right for peaceful protest. One cannot say to let the people decide and then get upset when the people decide something that's not what they were hoping for.

Ahh bringing us into reality. You're right. The chance of the laws being removed is almost zero. And yes, we ought not to be two-faced about boycotts and public protests and laws. Christians, we just don't seem to know how to act in the political and economical worlds. I personally would prefer to not engage in the political sphere much at all and to not heavily research each business I use. Am I lazy? Maybe. I would prefer to focus my time on relationships and spend little money on myself and more on helping other people. I am glad for those Christians who work to change laws. I don't agree with them all, sometimes I think they get off track, but I'm glad they are there. Do I think there are more important things? Yes. My husband likes to say, "you can't legislate morality" meaning that laws aren't going to change peoples hearts and also that laws don't typically do more than keeping honest people honest. So, we can fight for laws to keep Christians safe, but we aren't winning souls.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:21 am

Image
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:15 am

You know, at this point can we like start a new thread somewhere to define Statism and the multitude of different forms it takes? I have a feeling we may wanna clear all this up. Collectivism and authoritarianism in general are not the only forms Statism can take by any means.

For that matter we may as well clear up various forms of Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Minarchism too. There are more forms of these than the American-style ones we normally hear about (admittedly I am somewhat sympathetic towards anarcho-syndicalism, or at least certain aspects of it).

I feel like we're all talking past each other on this.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:56 pm

I think it's more that people are now down to their core principles and there aren't really any new arguments left.

One comment I'd like to make, and this isn't a criticism but rather something I want to point out, Rooster... You've cited a lot of court cases when defending your arguments, and that's really great in a legal type debate... But in this, what's being discussed is a much more primal form of right and wrong. We can already see what's considered legal by looking at court cases until we drown in them, but what guys like Sstavix and I are saying is that legal doesn't necessarily mean right. You can cite legal precedent all day long of courts finding that businesses have to be treated like public assets or judges who threw out religious exception arguments but what all of that boils down to is laws and legal precedents that may, or may NOT, reflect the values in the Constitution or morality as defined by a Christian.

So in that sense, yes, we are all here sort of talking past each other in the sense that your'e making legal arguments, but we don't care about legal arguments... The laws, as they stand, are broken.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:25 pm

I think it's more that people are now down to their core principles and there aren't really any new arguments left.
I dunno, I felt like I spent more of this thread defining what my core principles are not as opposed to what they are. It seemed that if I wasn't a libertarian I was a collectivist, and my views are a lot more nuanced than that. That was my reason for asking what I just did because I at least want to get a chance to say what I really am at least. Not expecting an agreement but that would help future discussions. If nothing else it will at least cut down on the amount of time of establishing what my core views are to begin with.
One comment I'd like to make, and this isn't a criticism but rather something I want to point out, Rooster... You've cited a lot of court cases when defending your arguments, and that's really great in a legal type debate... But in this, what's being discussed is a much more primal form of right and wrong. We can already see what's considered legal by looking at court cases until we drown in them, but what guys like Sstavix and I are saying is that legal doesn't necessarily mean right. You can cite legal precedent all day long of courts finding that businesses have to be treated like public assets or judges who threw out religious exception arguments but what all of that boils down to is laws and legal precedents that may, or may NOT, reflect the values in the Constitution or morality as defined by a Christian.

So in that sense, yes, we are all here sort of talking past each other in the sense that your'e making legal arguments, but we don't care about legal arguments... The laws, as they stand, are broken.
I see your point.

In fairness though the issue has usually come up when we start discussing rights. We keep jumping back and forth between the moral and legal side of things. When it becomes clear on that we will either agree or wind up at an impasse on the moral side it switches over to the legal and vice versa. Each time we either come to an agreement or impasse it switches back to the other. The fact is that the issue of rights is part of both realms simultaneously and there's no way of avoiding this.

The fact that legal does not always imply right is not in question here. I have argued from the moral aspect as well as legal aspect, as has everyone else here. I don't think any of us have solely argued from only one aspect exclusively and sometimes we aren't clear as to which one we are addressing at a given moment. The thing is the two are inseparable. That may be the root cause of the problem you're observing.

So I'll give some help so that you understand where I draw the line between the two...

For me it is simple, if someone argues that something is a right is allowed under the Constitution, then that falls under the legal, not moral domain. It can also be a moral one but invoking a legal document such as the Constitution requires that the issue be addressed from a legal standpoint. It is then that I usually bring out sections of the Constitution as well as relevant court cases and policies. To me one cannot use the Constitution as a foundation for their argument while not arguing the legal aspect, it's impossible. It does not mean the moral aspect cannot be discussed, but it must be done in conjunction with the legal aspect. In the case of whether something is a Constitutional right I hate to say it but the legal aspect takes precedence. The moral aspect takes a backseat to the question of whether it is a legal right in this country according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. If we don't want to focus the legal aspect the to be honest it is best not focus on the Constitutionality of a given right in the first place.

Now, if we transition to whether it SHOULD be a legal right to begin with, THAT is a primarily moral argument as it goes beyond the Constitutionality of the matter. The legal part still cannot be separated from it, but in that case the moral aspect takes precedence. Whether something is God given or something that we as a society should be endorsing is a whole different matter and no amount of legalities will change this. No government is infallible and it is a good thing to challenge laws or even aspects of the Constitution on moral grounds.

I think we can do a much better job at stating this more clearly though in the middle of the conversation. To me it is quite simple, if we are going to talk about legal or Constitutional rights as a US Citizen, then the focus needs to be on the legal aspect. If we are going to focus on the moral aspect, it is best to not focus on the legal and Constitutional aspects of it then.

If we want to just stick with the moral aspect I'm ok with that, but I'm not ok with throwing laws and Constitutionality back into the mix afterwards, which has happened in the past on all sides. It blurs the line between the moral and legal when we need it to remain explicit and clear.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:25 pm

For me it is simple, if someone argues that something is a right is allowed under the Constitution, then that falls under the legal, not moral domain. It can also be a moral one but invoking a legal document such as the Constitution requires that the issue be addressed from a legal standpoint. It is then that I usually bring out sections of the Constitution as well as relevant court cases and policies. To me one cannot use the Constitution as a foundation for their argument while not arguing the legal aspect, it's impossible.
I get what you're saying, but even then it's still murky. Just because some judge (or even the Supreme Court) makes a decision doesn't mean it was the correct one. I think the Supreme Court got it wrong on Obamacare. I think it got it wrong on Roe v. Wade. In cases like this are we supposed to just shut up and let things go, or should we talk about the morality AND the Constitutionality of the subject and try to get things to change?

Some judge in CO threatened to throw a baker in JAIL if he refused to do gay wedding cakes. That's both immoral AND unconstitutional from where I'm sitting.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

coffeeblocks33
Noob
Noob
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby coffeeblocks33 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:19 pm

As an individual, and a Christian, I have an opinion on a great many life decisions. I believe that some decisions are sinful. What does sinful mean? In the simplest terms sinful means destructive. Sin destroys people whom God loves and values.

However, I don't want my government or any government to be as equally opinionated. On a great many things, I want the government to remain silent. It is not the government's job to sanctify the hearts of its citizens, that job is reserved for Christ and his Church. No law has ever been written that can change someone's heart; only the Holy Spirit can bring about such a change. When governments try to go about this work of changing hearts, the result is always... tyranny. I believe the role of government, as implied in scripture, is exceedingly simple... punish those who do wrong (hurt people, break or steal stuff) and commend those who do right ("Well done citizen, go about your business'). Any attempt to go beyond this by governments, has horrifying potential for evil in a fallen world.

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Fri May 01, 2015 5:48 pm

I get what you're saying, but even then it's still murky. Just because some judge (or even the Supreme Court) makes a decision doesn't mean it was the correct one. I think the Supreme Court got it wrong on Obamacare. I think it got it wrong on Roe v. Wade. In cases like this are we supposed to just shut up and let things go, or should we talk about the morality AND the Constitutionality of the subject and try to get things to change?
Well of course we talk about the morality and Constitutionality, but as I said before, if we're gonna talk about the Constitutionality, the issue of legal and historical precedent is an essential part of that. You can't have just a "purely" moral argument on the Constitutionality of a given issue. Thus things like historical backdrop, author's intentions, common law practices of relevant time periods, legal principles of various interpretive frameworks, and court rulings throughout our entire history must be discussed. You can't have a meaningful discussion about Constitutionality without them.
Some judge in CO threatened to throw a baker in JAIL if he refused to do gay wedding cakes. That's both immoral AND unconstitutional from where I'm sitting.
I would agree on that, though most likely not for the same reasons.

I think jail is not the correct course of action, and also it depends on the nature of the case as well. Jail would also be a very disproportionate response and would fall under cruel and unusual punishment if in fact discrimination laws/policies were violated.

The appropriate course of action would be to either just have them make the cake or pay a fine. If they refuse to pay the fine, keep adding penalties up to and including loss of business license. Either that or do what a for-profit wedding chapel did out in Idaho and try to apply to be an explicitly Christian based business (which did work, as it used to advertise itself as an interfaith chapel previously but now is exempt from hosting gay marriages despite still being for-profit). It would be an uphill battle though since bakeries, like any food service, would most likely be fall under the domain of public accommodation. Worth a shot though and it certainly beats stubborn and unnecessary belligerence.

Also, as I have also said before, I do agree that for the most part, the current laws regarding non-discrimination and public accommodations have a sound moral foundation in themselves. I've explained my reasoning on that in this thread before too. If Christianity became a minority in an increasingly secular country that has we would ABSOLUTELY want these ordinances. If society has, as many of us here have proclaimed, by and large become hostile to Christianity, the scenario wouldn't be the nicey nice "Ah well, no biggie, I can just go to the next bakery down the street" one that has often been invoked here. If the level of anti-Christian hostility that is usually asserted here is in fact true, the real scenario would be more like how Christians are being marginalized and singled out for persecution in places like the Middle East and China.

In other words, if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be just as bad if not worse for us Christians. So there's that.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Fri May 01, 2015 6:00 pm

Well of course we talk about the morality and Constitutionality, but as I said before, if we're gonna talk about the Constitutionality, the issue of legal and historical precedent is an essential part of that. You can't have just a "purely" moral argument on the Constitutionality of a given issue. Thus things like historical backdrop, author's intentions, common law practices of relevant time periods, legal principles of various interpretive frameworks, and court rulings throughout our entire history must be discussed. You can't have a meaningful discussion about Constitutionality without them.
I don't think I agree with that. Court decisions are nothing more than a judge's interpretation of a Constitutional issue, usually colored by his/her own personal politics. Author's intentions when it comes to law are meaningless, since it's the letter of the law that matters. (just like the RAI vs RAW argument in gaming.) You can quote a thousand court cases but none of it is necessarily binding on new cases and, let's be honest, none of us here are lawyers so at best if we start doing that the best we'll get is an incomplete, amateurish analysis anyway.

Laws and rulings get repealed or overturned all the time. The Constitution itself is the core of all U.S. law, and is rarely amended. Everything else is just dressing.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Tue May 05, 2015 4:11 pm

Image
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Deepfreeze32 » Tue May 05, 2015 7:31 pm

Ahh, I see we finally hit Godwin's Law.


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests