Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
kimmy

Indiana "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" controversy

Recommended Posts

I think they should be allowed to discriminate, and people have the right not to do business with them. Put your money where you are going to get the right service.

People are spending too much time to get others to be inclusive for them instead of going where they are accepted in the first place. It's making a problem out of something that should not be a problem in the first place. If I don't get good service at a business I let them know, then I never go back. That is how you change things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's making a problem out of something that should not be a problem in the first place.

I bet that Indiana pizzaria owner wish he had not exercised his free speech rights.

Others decided to exercise their free speech rights and he has now closed his pizza shop for a spell.

Edited by Guyser2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should be allowed to discriminate, and people have the right not to do business with them.

I actually have a harder time boycotting businesses who are acting within their rights. If they determine that they should follow a certain practice, and it's within the law then it would have to be an extreme case for me to boycott.

Are we going to make retail stores the proxy battleground for every moral fight ? That just seems to make it a fight about what is the most popular position, not what is the right one. Also, if a store allows gays in should Christians then boycott the store ?

The fight about discrimination and public establishments happened in the 1950s and 1960s, and the solution seems to have held.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have a harder time boycotting businesses who are acting within their rights. If they determine that they should follow a certain practice, and it's within the law then it would have to be an extreme case for me to boycott.

Are we going to make retail stores the proxy battleground for every moral fight ? That just seems to make it a fight about what is the most popular position, not what is the right one. Also, if a store allows gays in should Christians then boycott the store ?

The fight about discrimination and public establishments happened in the 1950s and 1960s, and the solution seems to have held.

I listened to a Peter Schiff podcast last night and he points out a few things I though were good.

Let people discriminate, and you can then choose to do business with them or not.

If you force a place to accommodate do you think you are going to get the quality of service that is expected for other customers? Also do you want to do business in a place that does not like gay people? Why?

Another thing he points out... would you want to hang out with others that are bigots? Why would you expose yourself to that? Easiest way is to not do business with that establishment. There are more effective ways of putting the crunch on businesses who are discriminatory. If they are not making money, they go out of business, and then the problem is solved. It might make way for a more inclusive business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to a Peter Schiff podcast last night and he points out a few things I though were good.

Let people discriminate, and you can then choose to do business with them or not.

If you force a place to accommodate do you think you are going to get the quality of service that is expected for other customers? Also do you want to do business in a place that does not like gay people? Why?

Again, this doesn't address my point that it becomes a populist thing. If everybody agrees that Communists are scum, then this approach will ensure that their rights are denied.

Another thing he points out... would you want to hang out with others that are bigots? Why would you expose yourself to that? Easiest way is to not do business with that establishment. There are more effective ways of putting the crunch on businesses who are discriminatory. If they are not making money, they go out of business, and then the problem is solved. It might make way for a more inclusive business.

Yes, that's not a new or thoughtful approach. It effectively brings rights down to a popularity contest, which is not on. If I wasn't so magnanimous, I might decide that 9/11 people should be shunned for insubordination. If there were a witch hunt on, we could ensure that they weren't able to order pizzas, buy groceries, buy cellphones or get a bank account...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this doesn't address my point that it becomes a populist thing. If everybody agrees that Communists are scum, then this approach will ensure that their rights are denied.

Yes, that's not a new or thoughtful approach. It effectively brings rights down to a popularity contest, which is not on. If I wasn't so magnanimous, I might decide that 9/11 people should be shunned for insubordination. If there were a witch hunt on, we could ensure that they weren't able to order pizzas, buy groceries, buy cellphones or get a bank account...

How do you think businesses thrive? They are inclusive and cater to all. Let those who want to discriminate go away like the dinosaurs. I am not asking for witch hunts, I am asking for people to boycott those places and do business where they cater to everyone.

But ramp that up to a national level, should a country discriminate who it does business with? Should a nation be doing business with the likes of North Korea? If you feel this is a yes, then the state level answer is also a yes.

It is a good approach and it is thoughtful. What kind of service do you think you are going to get if I am forced to not discriminate via law? It boils down to good customer service period. If you want the business and the profits, you'll need to change your business tactics, or the alternative is close shop and be broke.

It is a popularity contest. The establishment with the best and most inclusive customer service will thrive. Plain and simple business practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a popularity contest. The establishment with the best and most inclusive customer service will thrive. Plain and simple business practice.

However, life is not a popularity contest. Sure a business may do just fine by turning away minorities, but an individual person who is a minority will suffer when they only have access to a tiny fraction of the available retail outlets and service providers. Imagine what life would be like for homosexuals or Muslims in rural bible belt locales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you think businesses thrive? They are inclusive and cater to all.

Segregated restaurants in the southern states in the 1950s ?

But ramp that up to a national level, should a country discriminate who it does business with? Should a nation be doing business with the likes of North Korea? If you feel this is a yes, then the state level answer is also a yes.

If I feel we should trade with North Korea, then my idea of having states legislate access to businesses open to the public is also yes ?

Is that it ?

It is a good approach and it is thoughtful. What kind of service do you think you are going to get if I am forced to not discriminate via law? It boils down to good customer service period. If you want the business and the profits, you'll need to change your business tactics, or the alternative is close shop and be broke.

Talk to the history, then and explain that.

It is a popularity contest. The establishment with the best and most inclusive customer service will thrive. Plain and simple business practice.

I do think state-sanctioned morality has a place in moderating interactions between individuals. It's been proven to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, life is not a popularity contest. Sure a business may do just fine by turning away minorities, but an individual person who is a minority will suffer when they only have access to a tiny fraction of the available retail outlets and service providers. Imagine what life would be like for homosexuals or Muslims in rural bible belt locales.

Why would you want to live among bigots anyways? Let them isolate themselves, which would only hurt them more. If the town hates gays, then move out and never be among them again. You can't change their way of thinking my forcing them to accept other lifestyles via law.

We can live in a country free to discriminate and disagree with said discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are advocating for separate pockets of antagonistic tribes that hate each other... Great idea.

So integrating tribes that hate each other is the answer? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Segregation leads to entrenched hate and inequality, you're calling for the return of black and white water fountains. Integration leads to tolerance and normalization. Equal opportunity and rights, laws that enforce decent treatment of people and freedom of mobility sounds a lot better to me.

Edited by Mighty AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we going to make retail stores the proxy battleground for every moral fight ? That just seems to make it a fight about what is the most popular position, not what is the right one. Also, if a store allows gays in should Christians then boycott the store ?

The fight about discrimination and public establishments happened in the 1950s and 1960s, and the solution seems to have held.

People shouldn't have to rely on market forces to enforce their rights, and people shouldn't have to live in the right part of the country to have their rights recognized.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People shouldn't have to rely on market forces to enforce their rights, and people shouldn't have to live in the right part of the country to have their rights recognized.

-k

I agree. Communities need to have common values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Segregation leads to entrenched hate and inequality, you're calling for the return of black and white water fountains. Integration leads to tolerance and normalization. Equal opportunity and rights, laws that enforce decent treatment of people and freedom of mobility sounds a lot better to me.

"Separate but equal" was never equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People shouldn't have to rely on market forces to enforce their rights

See gender discrimination for health clubs....market forces in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, what it boils down to is that companies like Cummins and Salesforce and Angie's List need to attract educated young professionals. They're concerned that the RFRA makes Indiana sound like a redneck backwater, and young educated professionals don't want to move to a redneck backwater. (this is why no businesses were up in arms about the Arkansas RFRA, which also passed this week. No educated young professionals were planning on moving to Arkansas anyway.)

Well, I was wrong about this much.

It turns out that businesses do care about Arkansas after all. Of particular note, Wal-Mart-- whose corporate headquarters is in Arkansas-- let it be known that they were none too pleased with the Arkansas RFRA.

Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson has obviously been paying attention, and has announced that he will send the bill back for changes. He wants the RFRA amended so that it mirrors the Federal RFRA.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Segregation leads to entrenched hate and inequality, you're calling for the return of black and white water fountains. Integration leads to tolerance and normalization, Equal opportunity and rights, laws that enforce decent treatment of people and freedom of mobility sounds a lot better to me.

No I am not calling for black and white water fountains. I am leaving it up to the freedom and right to refuse a customer based on whatever bigoted mentality the management/ownership. I am also leaving it up to your freedom and right to NOT do business with them. For every place that wants to discriminate, there are plenty of other establishments that will gladly cater to your specific needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See gender discrimination for health clubs....market forces in action.

A red herring. Neither Spa Lady, nor Augusta Golf And Country Club, nor the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo are places of public accommodation.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A red herring.

The courts disagree...for membership and employment law....nice try.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts disagree...for membership and employment law....nice try.

Yep. The hysteria over this law is the biggest, most ridiculous sensationalism I've ever seen. It doesn't allow anyone to deny somebody their civil rights. But if one is brought to court, somebody can use their religious beliefs as a defence. But that doesn't mean at all that they'd win. But nothing will stop the Gaystapo from insisting that everybody not alongy acknowledge there lifestyle and beliefs, but also approve of it, and participate in some way. It's totalitarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts disagree...for membership and employment law....nice try.

Yep. And those establishments that make a jacket and tie mandatory are discriminating against the poor. But that's ok too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're definitely human, but being gay isn't normal. I can say that while at the same time supporting their rights and equality as I can separate the two things.

Your reasoning is very abnormal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. The hysteria over this law is the biggest, most ridiculous sensationalism I've ever seen. It doesn't allow anyone to deny somebody their civil rights. But if one is brought to court, somebody can use their religious beliefs as a defence. But that doesn't mean at all that they'd win. But nothing will stop the Gaystapo from insisting that everybody not alongy acknowledge there lifestyle and beliefs, but also approve of it, and participate in some way. It's totalitarianism.

Don't you think belittling the actions of the Gestapo is deeply offensive to those who suffered under them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...