| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/30/15 5:11 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I'm actually in a business where you sometimes can't take customers who come to you, but I know that's not what you're talking about.
I can't imagine turning someone away based on religion, gender, sexual orientation and other immutable characteristics. I can imagine not working with someone based on personal characteristics - really terrible people, basically, but again that's not your question. |
Well, HERE'S one: I'm a gay man, and own a large printing & sign company. I get Fred Phelps' congregation coming to me to make up 1,000 "God Hates Fags" signs for their next event. What do I do?  |
I'd suggest printing them with a typo, maybe turning the H into a D or the last a into an i ("God Hates Figs" has a nice ring to it) |
I LIKE how you think! LOL...."God Dates Fags"? "Figs" works well, too. One could claim a typo on the work order, no?
The other point, of course, is WOULD an outfit like Phelps' even COME to my business if they knew I was a fag? I doubt they'd want to give me their money, or trust me with the job (rightfully so  ) So they'd avoid me.
So, if there are businesses in IN that would hide their proclivity for discrimination, LET US KNOW. I don't want to patronize anyone who has a problem with me and my "type". Someone suggested that idea above, by identifying those places with a card in the window. Stand up and show your TRUE Colors.
| TonyL222 wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
Well, HERE'S one: I'm a gay man, and own a large printing & sign company. I get Fred Phelps' congregation coming to me to make up 1,000 "God Hates Fags" signs for their next event. What do I do? |
As a business owner I believe you should always always retain the right to refuse certain business. A photographer may refuse to take pornographic (but otherwise legal) photos for example. But refusing to provide service to certain groups while providing that same service to other groups is the issue. |
Bingo. How does that escape their comprehension?
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/15 6:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| TonyL222 wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
Well, HERE'S one: I'm a gay man, and own a large printing & sign company. I get Fred Phelps' congregation coming to me to make up 1,000 "God Hates Fags" signs for their next event. What do I do? |
As a business owner I believe you should always always retain the right to refuse certain business. A photographer may refuse to take pornographic (but otherwise legal) photos for example. But refusing to provide service to certain groups while providing that same service to other groups is the issue. |
Seems like an awfully fuzzy line there. Howee's example is plainly refusing service to a particular group, yet no one seems to have a problem with it. |
Hmm. I didn't say I'd refuse service, actually: that's a typical reaction, tho. *Hypothetically*, I'd LOVE to serve them....in a way they'd regret! LOL! [See: BeK's suggested *mistakes*] Of course, that's easier said than done.
But still....just as restaurants post signs, such as "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", can't I refuse to serve someone who asks me to do something I find contrary to my very *being*?
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/15 7:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| But still....just as restaurants post signs, such as "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", can't I refuse to serve someone who asks me to do something I find contrary to my very *being*? |
Depends what it is that you find contrary. There are many things you can refuse, and some that you cannot. When you operate a business or provide a service there are many laws that tell you what you can and cannot do.
To once again reference Tony's excellent example, if you are a photographer who finds pornography contrary to your very being you are free to refuse to shoot porn. However, you are prohibited by law from doing something like refusing to serve African-Americans, even if you are a member of the Aryan Nation and find providing that service contrary to your very being.
"No shirts. No shoes. No service." is an equal opportunity policy. There is no class of people who are being singled out or discriminated against. Same goes for establishments that have a strict dress code. People are free to define the look and style of their business, and what services they wish to offer (within some various regulations like building codes and zoning laws, etc.) just as long as they are open to everyone (with a few exceptions where they are aimed at a specific clientele base and can quantify the need for said discrimination (eg: Curves)).
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
Barrister15
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 4270
Location: New York, NY
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/15 11:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Indiana's largest newspaper speaks out against the state's RFRA.
| Quote: |
| All of this is at risk because of a new law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that no matter its original intent already has done enormous harm to our state and potentially our economic future. |
Editorial: Gov. Pence, fix 'religious freedom' law now
|
|
scullyfu
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8861
Location: Niagara Falls
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 7:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
But still....just as restaurants post signs, such as "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", can't I refuse to serve someone who asks me to do something I find contrary to my very *being*? |
this reminds me of the pharmacists who refused to carry/sell the morning after pill RU86. those pharmacists were/are required (iirc) to give you a referral to a pharmacy in the same area that can accommodate you.
feel free to correct my recollection.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 9:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Purdue is embarrassing itself with its response. Presidents from Indiana, Butler and DePauw have all issued forceful statements against the bill. Purdue - not its president - issued the tepid piece of crap you can imagine.
| Quote: |
Purdue works hard every day to be an open and welcoming institution, and we stand by our university-wide policy on nondiscrimination, which prohibits discrimination against any member of the University community on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry, genetic information, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability, or status as a veteran.
We will continue our proactive and persistent efforts to ensure that all members of the University community feel welcome and supported.
While a longstanding Board of Trustees policy precludes Purdue taking institutional positions on matters such as the current controversy, we wish to take this opportunity to affirm our unwavering commitment to our principles and our opposition to any governmental measure that would interfere with their practice on our campuses. |
Worse, the university spokesperson is parroting the outright lie that this law is like the law passed in other states and federally. Instead of leading, Mitch Daniels and company are hiding and covering themselves with untrue GOP talking points.
I have never been so ashamed of my alma mater.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 10:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
Purdue is embarrassing itself with its response. Presidents from Indiana, Butler and DePauw have all issued forceful statements against the bill. Purdue - not its president - issued the tepid piece of crap you can imagine.
| Quote: |
Purdue works hard every day to be an open and welcoming institution, and we stand by our university-wide policy on nondiscrimination, which prohibits discrimination against any member of the University community on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry, genetic information, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability, or status as a veteran.
We will continue our proactive and persistent efforts to ensure that all members of the University community feel welcome and supported.
While a longstanding Board of Trustees policy precludes Purdue taking institutional positions on matters such as the current controversy, we wish to take this opportunity to affirm our unwavering commitment to our principles and our opposition to any governmental measure that would interfere with their practice on our campuses. |
Worse, the university spokesperson is parroting the outright lie that this law is like the law passed in other states and federally. Instead of leading, Mitch Daniels and company are hiding and covering themselves with untrue GOP talking points.
I have never been so ashamed of my alma mater. |
Well, considering Daniels was the previous gov., I'm not too surprised.
Does Daniels remind anyone else of Frank Burns, or is it just me?
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 11:11 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Barrister15 wrote: |
Indiana's largest newspaper speaks out against the state's RFRA.
| Quote: |
| All of this is at risk because of a new law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that no matter its original intent already has done enormous harm to our state and potentially our economic future. |
Editorial: Gov. Pence, fix 'religious freedom' law now |
| Quote: |
| Governor, Indiana is in a state of crisis. It is worse than you seem to understand. |
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 11:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Just sent an email to Pence.
Which will come first? My form letter reply or Homeland Security?
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 1:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
Just sent an email to Pence.
Which will come first? My form letter reply or Homeland Security? |
It depends what the email said . . .
|
|
Joe Foss
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 4066
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 10:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=btn-facebook-ctrl1
Ok, this is supposed to be telling how Indiana's version of RFRA is different from others. It makes sense to me, but I'll let others decide.
| Quote: |
| First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to the free exercise of religion. The federal RFRA doesnt contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolinas; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. |
and
| Quote: |
Well, theres a lot of evidence that the new wave of religious freedom legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couples wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexicos RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the states Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply because the government is not a party.
Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.
|
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 10:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
Just sent an email to Pence.
Which will come first? My form letter reply or Homeland Security? |
It depends what the email said . . . |
Nothing much (I think). Just some background on my family's republican ties and that if he doesn't get this fixed that I will never vote for him. (Like he'd really care if I vote for him or not.  ) |
That's IT?? That's pretty safe, LOL! I recently received an e-mail from my congressional rep (Joe Pitts) soliciting praise for his "Stand against Obama" crap. I promptly called his office, expecting some automated message to play. I was a bit surprised to get some live young bippy on the other end.
But, unphased, I asked her to please inform Joe that as one of his constituents, I felt he did NOT represent me, and that I thought any and all Republicans who opposed Obama were assholes, and I'd prefer they all STOP the crap, and get things done. She promptly asked for my name, phone number, and address. Which I gave, not thinking until later that could have been unwise. But then, I figured....if it helps to establish me as a real person registering a legitimate opinion, let 'em look me up. I've got MORE to say!
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/31/15 11:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
Just sent an email to Pence.
Which will come first? My form letter reply or Homeland Security? |
It depends what the email said . . . |
Nothing much (I think). Just some background on my family's republican ties and that if he doesn't get this fixed that I will never vote for him. (Like he'd really care if I vote for him or not. ) |
That's IT?? That's pretty safe, LOL! I recently received an e-mail from my congressional rep (Joe Pitts) soliciting praise for his "Stand against Obama" crap. I promptly called his office, expecting some automated message to play. I was a bit surprised to get some live young bippy on the other end.
But, unphased, I asked her to please inform Joe that as one of his constituents, I felt he did NOT represent me, and that I thought any and all Republicans who opposed Obama were assholes, and I'd prefer they all STOP the crap, and get things done. She promptly asked for my name, phone number, and address. Which I gave, not thinking until later that could have been unwise. But then, I figured....if it helps to establish me as a real person registering a legitimate opinion, let 'em look me up. I've got MORE to say! |
I said that it wasn't too bad.  If it makes him feel any better (and keeps Homeland Security off of my doorstep), a year or so ago I sent a critical email to my democrat rep. Guess I'm an equal opportunity angry-a-politicians-that-are-being-dumb emailer.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
|
|
