Feelings about Indiana's new law?
- Thread starter Beleated_Media
- Start date
DoctorGallifrey
The Raggedy Man
Georgia tried to pull a similar bill. I believe it got vetoed thankfully.
Also, I think this just applies to private businesses like your rinky dink mom & pop shops, restaurants, bakeries, etc. Not chain establishments like Targets, Wal-marts, Aldi's, McDonalds, BK, Wendy's, etc. Correct me on this if I'm mistaken
Also, I think this just applies to private businesses like your rinky dink mom & pop shops, restaurants, bakeries, etc. Not chain establishments like Targets, Wal-marts, Aldi's, McDonalds, BK, Wendy's, etc. Correct me on this if I'm mistaken
Last edited:
rockthemike13
Senior Member
My opinion is that discrimination is wrong, but if you build a business with your own hands, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Refusing service is a minor annoyance at best, and people really need to put their grown up pants on and stop screaming and crying if they feel they were treated "unfairly". I'd be upset if some one refused me service for my zany hair, but I wouldn't expect the government to shut down said business, or sue them. It's a part of life, I wasn't physically harmed, and I can take my business else where.
Indiana has the right idea. More freedom to the people with a less oppressive government.
Indiana has the right idea. More freedom to the people with a less oppressive government.
Last edited:
Fighter_Kibbeh
Senior Member
(post deleted)
Last edited:
Well it's their business so they should be able to do what they want with it at the end of the day.
Like, I'm not saying discrimination isn't a bad thing but I don't see what difference this will really make either.
Store owners won't have to serve people they don't want to (for whatever reason) and the store will lose custom from those people and from others that hear about the reputation gained from their discrimination who disagree with it...
From a personal point of view, if I knew a certain company didn't want to serve me in particular for some reason then I would't want to give them my money in the first place. Now they'll have big signs in their window to let me know I shouldn't give them my money. Sounds convenient.
Like, I'm not saying discrimination isn't a bad thing but I don't see what difference this will really make either.
Store owners won't have to serve people they don't want to (for whatever reason) and the store will lose custom from those people and from others that hear about the reputation gained from their discrimination who disagree with it...
From a personal point of view, if I knew a certain company didn't want to serve me in particular for some reason then I would't want to give them my money in the first place. Now they'll have big signs in their window to let me know I shouldn't give them my money. Sounds convenient.
sailorerika
壊れて Messiah
I pretty much agree with this. They're the ones losing business and getting publicly shamed for their idiocy. They can have their "freedom" to do what they want but that doesn't mean it won't come back to bite them.
Last edited:
To the users that think this is not that big of a deal. The point of it is not a loss or gain of income, an option of a place to shop, or is it a black-or-white allowance. The point is that they are allowing shop owners to look at a group of individuals and deny them something as basic as shopping because of things they cannot change. This is no different than the racial segregation that is part of America's history. What really matters is the sense of belonging to a community that accepts you regardless of how you live in your personal life. Being personally part of a group of people that already lives under the "wrong" end of society's morals, acceptance and being able to fully enjoy your community is important. Yes, the companies that use this is completely and utterly wrong but the reason why this is a problem is that it is the law. These business owners now have a legitimate way to ostracize longstanding outcasts and it is completely unfair.
You cannot disregard something like this as simply as not shopping there, it really is not that simple.
You cannot disregard something like this as simply as not shopping there, it really is not that simple.
rockthemike13
Senior Member
Not to say this is really the same line of wrongness, but I would like to cite an example here. A local man was busted by the authorities for having child pornography on his computer (believe me, I am not saying this is the same as being homosexual). People were so irate with him, the local coffee shop refused to serve him.
Now, should it be a law that we cannot "discriminate" this man based on his sexual preference? Or is it the coffee shop's right to decide rather or not it wants to serve him? Is this a view that we need to agree with him on?
No worries, I'm not going to attack you for the "parallels". This is actually a very solid argument for debate because it forces my viewpoints into question as well. Personally, I believe in a leopard can change his spots so as long as he's actively keeping his desires in check, if I were a business owner I would serve him. That being said, the main difference is that the viewpoint shifts from same-sex to pedophilic with your example being is that he's never actively tried to get with a child. So that's were the parallels begins of speculative harm, no one can prove that they are harmful so they're essentially harmless. Now the argument of homosexuality being in the same category of pedophilia is not something I'm going to argue here, but all I'll say is pedophilia is widely punishable by law.
I would be the biggest hypocrite in saying that we shouldn't, by law, serve a registered sex offender. I would and the people should, and by no means should a company be allowed to deny him. And to move on to the point of acceptance of his sexual preference, we're dwelling deep into the psyche of fear of a person and whether or not it is right. The same fear and treatment of a homosexual person to that of a pedophilic sex offender can be the same, with few specific differences. I honestly cannot give you an answer to that because my gut would not allow him to be alone with my kids, but I would be open to communicating with him. At the same time, I can see the argument of "if homosexuals can why not x/y". I hope that answer makes sense.
Not exactly to do with this topic, but on another note with the USA's 'laws', has anyone heard about that woman who has been sentenced to 20 years for having a miscarriage, possibly an abortion? Absolutely barbaric. Why is the USA going backwards??
edit: her name is Purvi Patel, for anyone who wants to look up this abomination of justice
edit: her name is Purvi Patel, for anyone who wants to look up this abomination of justice
Last edited:
itt: shots were fired
Last edited:
oh yeh I forgot, a tiny non-viable foetus' life takes priority over a talking, feeling, breathing woman's life, and therefore we have to take away women's right to body autonomy and force all women to keep their pregnancy despite the psychological, social and physical consequences she may have, therefore bringing even more unwanted babies into the world, causing an increase in the already overflowing amount of unwanted children wanting to be adopted, and an increase in child abuse, and also an increase in single mothers living on the tax payers money because she has to look after a child she didn't want oh yeah that sounds great
Yep, couldn't said it better myself. I sometime wonder what these pro-lifers have in their mind.
To get on topic, it sounds... stupid. Of course if you refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple you will be sued or barked at, but then again you shouldn't work there anyways.
Pedophilia is an abhorrent act punishable by law. Calling it a "sexual preference" is actually sickening. Denying a felon who preys on children service is quite a bit different to denying people service because they're in a consensual same sex relationship where the participants are of appropriate age. You're goddamn right it's not in the "same line of wrongness" and imo if businesses wanted to deny service to convicted child predators (not that they'd ever have a way of knowing that one was coming into their store, but yeah, I can dream) that's an entirely different issue and one I would support. Child predators are CRIMINALS who attack and scar for life the most vulnerable people in society. By harming a child in any way, your coffee shop, and whatever other shop, privileges should be non-existent. Because you should be locked up.
Whether you had any intention of being offensive or not, comparing non-heterosexual people to sexual deviant criminals is something that is ubiquitous in this type of debate and it has absolutely no place in it.
Last edited:
yeah it's a huge difference refusing some based on their beliefs or sexuality and refusing because they are doing something criminal.
this argument is only valid if they actually do act on their desires
- - - Post Merge - - -
also, it is still a preference. one that is understandably outlawed, but still a preference
You still have to register as a sex offender, so in the example I quoted, a coffee shop employee isn't going to know they didn't act on their disgusting desires. Only that they're a sex offender. Denying a sex offender access to a shop, especially one where children can frequent, is a far different issue to denying a gay couple. That's the main point I'm trying to make.
yeah, and that's honestly a pretty big problem I have with modern society
there is no question that the guy should be punished and his items confiscated/wiped, and even be put under surveillance. but so long as they haven't actually done anything themselves involving a minor, forcing them to register really makes little sense
at that point you may as well be registering people with rape fetishes and anything else offensive/illegal as sex offenders too
- - - Post Merge - - -
basically I just find its handling to be rather poor and not really doing anything to deal with the problem
Last edited:
Similar threads
