Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Maybe Evangelical Christians should be discriminated against for being assholes.

That's a thought. Go for it!

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

True. And if I was a woman or a Muslim I'd be equally as concerned about what excuses people will pull out of their ass for not being a decent human being because of laws like this. But what sort of big social change happening right now in favour of a certain group of people who have suffered open and legal discrimination and harassment, a change that is happening imminently and openly appealed to in the various briefs in support of those bills over the past few years is the catalyst for these legal moves? Don't you think maybe, that religious belief actually has sod all to do with it and it might, just might be an action against a certain minority group?

No, I don't.  People have beliefs that are important to them.  Do you find this odd?

Freedom to not be discriminated is more important than religious freedom. If they don't want to sell flowers to gay people, they are free to change jobs.

Uh, no.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 

Assuming I was bigoted against gay people (which I am not, and never was, even when I was a douche), I'd say we won. The law was signed. The right to discriminate is freedom of association. The right to be a douche is protected. Get over it.

You sound like a mentally disturbed 9th grader in this post, but then again, maybe you are just being yourself.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 

The right to discriminate is freedom of association.

No. The fact than someone my make that link is making shudder about the quality of education in Florida, since I don't even see how someone sane can reach that conclusion.

The relationship between a service provider and a customer has nothing to do with freedom of association. Freedom of association is about being free creating organisations, not freedom in customer service. You have to respect customers, you have to give them what they paid for, etc...

If I follow your logic, it would be legal for a service provider to bill people but not give the service, because the service provider is using it's freedom to choose not do it. It's a basic failure of understanding what freedom of association is.

Strawman. Lots of strawman arguments being used against me today.

Have you ever seen the "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs? Those signs allow the owner to turn away clients he/she doesn't want to serve; take, for example, a bar with a customer with a history of starting fights. Does this bar not have the right to refuse service to this man? Why should a florist who happens to be an Evangelical Christian have to serve a gay wedding if it goes against her (wrongly held) religious beliefs? Should this woman I am using as an example have to service the couple just because they approached her first?

Now, let us say that money was transferred. Than the company that you used in your example is obligated to give the service that the customer has paid for. That is called a contract, and contracts must be followed. Contracts must also be entered into voluntarily. Should I not have the right to refuse every contract that somebody offers me?

By the way, I am totally for gay rights and never have been bigoted in any way towards gay people. I think a gay bar has every right to discriminate against straight people, if they wanted to. I don't think discrimination is good for business, but the basic right to freedom of association-and yes, this IS freedom of association-is just as important as the right for any human being to be able to get married regardless of their sexual orientation.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, when it comes to a business they own. The Libertarians have that one right.

So you're saying you support this:



Good to know.

I don't support it, I just don't think it should be criminalized.

See, here is where I diverge from this type of thinking. I think a company has the right to refuse service to anyone, but if they accept customers, they shouldn't than relegate them to a second class status. So segregated drinking fountains are wrong, if you allow the person in the door and accept their business. Does this make sense to everybody? I feel my logic here is a tad bit zig-zaggy.