It is crazy to you because you are likely an able bodied, heterosexual white male.

So I should be forced to participate in something that would offend my beliefs?


I don't think businesses like say a diner should be allowed to deny service to someone because they are gay. I would serve them and I am a Christian. A persons sexuality is immaterial to the serving of food. Where I think a line should be drawn, and a slippery slope is beginning, is forcing a photographer to take pictures of a same sex wedding. In that instance I would be directly participating, aiding and abetting, etc the actions of something I directly can not be part of with good conscious. Do you really want to go down that line? What if I like a certain kind of food and demand a kosher deli to serve it? What if I prefer beef but my local butcher owned by a Hindu does not serve it because of their worship of cows? Should the government force them to serve it? To me, if the action or service you provide does not actually involve you per se, it (refusal of service) should not be allowed. Serving food, opening a bank account, cleaning a car, etc for a gay person does not make you party to whatever you consider "sinful". But I have a very hard time thinking it's ok to force someone to actually participate in an action that would make them party to something that deeply offends their belief. To me your opening a can of worms with that, and it's best left shut.

---

SamusAranX with an absolute homerun of a post.

---

So I should be forced to participate in something that would offend my beliefs?


I don't think businesses like say a diner should be allowed to deny service to someone because they are gay. I would serve them and I am a Christian. A persons sexuality is immaterial to the serving of food. Where I think a line should be drawn, and a slippery slope is beginning, is forcing a photographer to take pictures of a same sex wedding. In that instance I would be directly participating, aiding and abetting, etc the actions of something I directly can not be part of with good conscious. Do you really want to go down that line? What if I like a certain kind of food and demand a kosher deli to serve it? What if I prefer beef but my local butcher owned by a Hindu does not serve it because of their worship of cows? Should the government force them to serve it? To me, if the action or service you provide does not actually involve you per se, it (refusal of service) should not be allowed. Serving food, opening a bank account, cleaning a car, etc for a gay person does not make you party to whatever you consider "sinful". But I have a very hard time thinking it's ok to force someone to actually participate in an action that would make them party to something that deeply offends their belief. To me your opening a can of worms with that, and it's best left shut.

It's not a good argument IMO because the Hindu deli is not in the business of selling meat. The kosher Deli is in the business of selling kosher food. They are not discriminating by not selling certain types of food.

 

A photographer is in the business of taking photo's. Not selling a product that is limited in nature. I also think photographers work as contractors and contractors can accept or decline work of any kind for any reason.  At one point it was perfectly legal to deny service to blacks, handicap and a myriad of other things. It's the natural progressing of non discrimination. What about the wedding cakes? Is that ok because you are not actually at the (probably fabulous) party? A line can't be drawn, it can only be eliminated. 

 

Another way to look at this. Can you imagine the uproar should someone deny a person service because of the customer say wearing a cross on their neck. It's not even imaginable because discriminating based on religion is illegal. It's a hypocrisy to then allow those that are legally protected to discriminate against others. 

---

So I should be forced to participate in something that would offend my beliefs?


I don't think businesses like say a diner should be allowed to deny service to someone because they are gay. I would serve them and I am a Christian. A persons sexuality is immaterial to the serving of food. Where I think a line should be drawn, and a slippery slope is beginning, is forcing a photographer to take pictures of a same sex wedding. In that instance I would be directly participating, aiding and abetting, etc the actions of something I directly can not be part of with good conscious. Do you really want to go down that line? What if I like a certain kind of food and demand a kosher deli to serve it? What if I prefer beef but my local butcher owned by a Hindu does not serve it because of their worship of cows? Should the government force them to serve it? To me, if the action or service you provide does not actually involve you per se, it (refusal of service) should not be allowed. Serving food, opening a bank account, cleaning a car, etc for a gay person does not make you party to whatever you consider "sinful". But I have a very hard time thinking it's ok to force someone to actually participate in an action that would make them party to something that deeply offends their belief. To me your opening a can of worms with that, and it's best left shut.

 

How is taking photos of someone 'aiding and abetting'.  Photos aren't required at a wedding.  You're not aiding anything.  You're taking photos of it.  That'd be like saying someone is aiding and abetting human rights violations if they take photographs of it.  You're not participating in it, unless you're the one getting married.  Or perhaps in the case of officiant.

 

I mean what if your religion is against interracial marriage?  Do you get to turn down an interracial couple because of it too?

 

Do you generally go to McDonalds and request they sell lobster?  Or how about going to Wal-Mart and demanding they sell you a car?  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

From my business law class I had to take, I believe it's title VII that protects certain groups, so yes there are laws that can be broken due to discrimination.

---

How is taking photos of someone 'aiding and abetting'. Photos aren't required at a wedding. You're not aiding anything. You're taking photos of it. That'd be like saying someone is aiding and abetting human rights violations if they take photographs of it. You're not participating in it, unless you're the one getting married. Or perhaps in the case of officiant.


I mean what if your religion is against interracial marriage? Do you get to turn down an interracial couple because of it too?


Do you generally go to McDonalds and request they sell lobster? Or how about going to Wal-Mart and demanding they sell you a car?

To me being present at a wedding for whatever reason is a tacit sign of approval, intentional or not. That's my reasoning. Which is why in good conscience I could not provide a service that would benefit or have me involved in that wedding. That's my point. I'm neither a baker nor photographer so for me it's moot, I'm just uncomfortable of the prospect that the government can and has forced devout people to do something that to them is unconscionable. I can't remember the exact circumstances but there was a baker in Arizona who was forced to bake a cake after being brought to court by a gay couple.


For the record, again, I'm politically neutral. But as said before, I wonder if the government can force that, what else can they force upon I?

---

To me being present at a wedding for whatever reason is a tacit sign of approval, intentional or not. That's my reasoning. Which is why in good conscience I could not provide a service that would benefit or have me involved in that wedding. That's my point. I'm neither a baker nor photographer so for me it's moot, I'm just uncomfortable of the prospect that the government can and has forced devout people to do something that to them is unconscionable. I can't remember the exact circumstances but there was a baker in Arizona who was forced to bake a cake after being brought to court by a gay couple.


For the record, again, I'm politically neutral. But as said before, I wonder if the government can force that, what else can they force upon I?

They already force people who strongly feel in a negative way about various religious groups to tolerate and not discriminate them. This is just a natural progression of anti-discriminatory laws. 

---

They already force people who strongly feel in a negative way about various religious groups to tolerate and not discriminate them. This is just a natural progression of anti-discriminatory laws. 

 

You just nailed why there is an opposition to discriminatory laws. Laws always progress and grow naturally, that is the problem.

---

You just nailed why there is an opposition to discriminatory laws. Laws always progress and grow naturally, that is the problem.

That is not the reason people are in favor of this law. Not at all. It might be the reason YOU are in favor but not most people.

 

History is showing the anti-discriminatory laws have been a good thing. It's so silly because it does not stop religious people from being religious or practicing their religion it just say they can't discriminate in the same manner that minorities or the handicapped or any other myriad of things people have been discriminated for in the past, were subject to.

---

That is not the reason people are in favor of this law. Not at all. It might be the reason YOU are in favor but not most people.


History is showing the anti-discriminatory laws have been a good thing. It's so silly because it does not stop religious people from being religious or practicing their religion it just say they can't discriminate in the same manner that minorities or the handicapped or any other myriad of things people have been discriminated for in the past, were subject to.

On the last part, I agree. Gay people getting married is not threatening my freedom. They aren't stomping into my home, burning my bible, preventing me from praying etc. So people who cry that are just being idiots. They are still human beings. Treat them with dignity, kindness, and respect.

---

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/...ation.html

---

Should taxpayer's monies be spent to maintain roads and sidewalks that allow access to businesses that refuse to serve people based on their religious or sexual preference?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Should taxpayer's monies be spent to maintain roads and sidewalks that allow access to businesses that refuse to serve people based on their religious or sexual preference?

 

Taxpayers monies should not be spent maintaining roads and sidewalks.problem solved.

---

Taxpayers monies should not be spent maintaining roads and sidewalks.problem solved.

 

/headdesk

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Taxpayers monies should not be spent maintaining roads and sidewalks.problem solved.

Allow me to finish...


In countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..


But in this country? Where would you suggest that money be used for? Smart bombs that destroy roads and sidewalks in an another country? Then use what's left to fix them?

---

Blakes Life Matters

But in this country? Where would you suggest that money be used for? 

My guess is that he'd want the tax payers to keep their money.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

My guess is that he'd want the tax payers to keep their money.

That is correct sir

---

Should taxpayer's monies be spent to maintain roads and sidewalks that allow access to businesses that refuse to serve people based on their religious or sexual preference?

Yes, government functions for all. Private businesses do not.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Tl;Dr


If I were a business owner in Indiana, my only question would be "Is your money green?"

---

Should taxpayer's monies be spent to maintain roads and sidewalks that allow access to businesses that refuse to serve people based on their religious or sexual preference?

But really if the qualifications for equal access is simply public access your house had no right of refusal either

---