Indiana & LGBT

digitalbeachbum's picture

 Does a business have the right to refuse you service if they know you are gay? Can they refuse your business if they know your are a murderer? Adulterer? What if you are Muslim? Long hair? Six toes? Haven't taken a bath in six weeks? What if you are from a different church or if you are from a rival college?

Why are you in business for anyway?

I heard on the radio this morning about a baseball announcer who had previously been against Jackie Robinson playing baseball. He was very vocal about it, however he changed his mind when he realized that he was there to call the games. He couldn't be bothered with the fact that Jackie Robinson was black.

Besides where in the bible does it say you don't need to provide services to others? Doesn't the bible preach kindness and love? Forgiveness? And a host of other wanna-be empathy towards others including your enemies? The ten commandments are pretty specific aren't they?

I find this stance on refusing service to others ignorant and hypocritical.

Vastet's picture

I was going to post about

I was going to post about the Arkansas issue and Wal Mart taking a stance against it yesterday, but the computer I was using was shit and I gave up. Totally forgot by the time I got home.

Personally I think the issue is rather more complex than it is being portrayed. What about a store that refuses service to a customer that's located in a mall that won't tolerate such behaviour? Or vice versa?

The whole thing is really stupid anyway. Put a damn sign in plain view that plainly states you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and you're set legally, right? Beyond?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Jeffrick's picture

digital....

 

 

                       Refusing service to a gay person violates every law of equality I've ever heard of, based on your religion just makes it religious bigotry; so you don't invite them to your home or to your church but opperating a buisness or service in the public domain puts you under all  equal access laws has guerunteed by various SCOTUS decissions. btw, here in Ontario and probably most states, for any food related buisness you can refuse entry and service to (uncontrolled) long hairs and persons unbathed (unsanitary) also if they're sneezing and caughing these are of course Health regulations not equality issues.

 

 

                        That paragraph that starts "where in the bible does it say.......". ALL OVER both OT and NT.  Start with JC throwing out legal money lenders from the temple based on his religion, St.Paul and other writers preaching to convert or avoid the unbelievers. Jesus telling all to "leave your familys to follow me, if they do not think has you" or " I do not come in peace but with a sword to raise havoc and cause discourse, to set fathers against sons.......etc.".  In the OT they justified acts of gencide againsts entire nations for being different then Gods chosen people, talk about denial of services.

 

 

     

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?

iwbiek's picture

as much as discrimination

as much as discrimination makes me sick, i see no reason why the government has the right to force a private business to serve anyone.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:I was going to

Vastet wrote:
I was going to post about the Arkansas issue and Wal Mart taking a stance against it yesterday, but the computer I was using was shit and I gave up. Totally forgot by the time I got home. Personally I think the issue is rather more complex than it is being portrayed. What about a store that refuses service to a customer that's located in a mall that won't tolerate such behaviour? Or vice versa? The whole thing is really stupid anyway. Put a damn sign in plain view that plainly states you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and you're set legally, right? Beyond?

The basic idea of religious freedoms was to let you have that religion but not to force it on others. By refusing to serve a gay person and saying that "you are gay and it is against my religion" is not what our laws say you can function. Basically the way I view it is that the person what is next? A private ambulance service refusing to take a gay person to the hospital because the fucking CEO of the service says "we don't service gays because it is against my religion" then you have an issue of a gay person dying when they could have been wisked off to the hospital and lived.

This goes much deeper than serving pizza to a gay wedding.

digitalbeachbum's picture

Jeffrick wrote:       

Jeffrick wrote:

                       Refusing service to a gay person violates every law of equality I've ever heard of, based on your religion just makes it religious bigotry; so you don't invite them to your home or to your church but opperating a buisness or service in the public domain puts you under all  equal access laws has guerunteed by various SCOTUS decissions. btw, here in Ontario and probably most states, for any food related buisness you can refuse entry and service to (uncontrolled) long hairs and persons unbathed (unsanitary) also if they're sneezing and caughing these are of course Health regulations not equality issues.

                         That paragraph that starts "where in the bible does it say.......". ALL OVER both OT and NT.  Start with JC throwing out legal money lenders from the temple based on his religion, St.Paul and other writers preaching to convert or avoid the unbelievers. Jesus telling all to "leave your familys to follow me, if they do not think has you" or " I do not come in peace but with a sword to raise havoc and cause discourse, to set fathers against sons.......etc.".  In the OT they justified acts of gencide againsts entire nations for being different then Gods chosen people, talk about denial of services.

 

I agree it violates every law of equality. I agree about the laws for sanitary conditions but the long hair is a little far fetched unless they work for you or are delibrately throwing hair on the food.

All your examples are being taken out of context. Neither God or Jesus said delibrately "don't serve gays". Hell if God wanted you to kill off gays or reject them in your pizza parlor he would have put it in the ten commandments.

Concerning the Arkansas law

Interestingly, Christians could discriminate against gay people if Ballinger's bill passed but atheists could not, highlighting the same tensions between the First Amendment's establishment clause and its exercise clause that pop up with regard to peyote. I imagine that if Ballinger's bill became law, someone would try to use it to claim the right of conscience to take drugs for religious purposes. 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/25/david-burnett-flips-letting-anti-gay-and-ten-commandments-bills-out-of-committee

digitalbeachbum's picture

iwbiek wrote:as much as

iwbiek wrote:
as much as discrimination makes me sick, i see no reason why the government has the right to force a private business to serve anyone.

When you open a public business it is to serve the public. If they wanted it to be private then they should have done a membership only.

iwbiek's picture

Every business serves "the

Every business serves "the public." Unless it's a state-owned service, I see no reason why they should be forced to serve anyone.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

digitalbeachbum's picture

iwbiek wrote:Every business

iwbiek wrote:
Every business serves "the public." Unless it's a state-owned service, I see no reason why they should be forced to serve anyone.

There is a private members only type of business. Gyms are like that

ProzacDeathWish's picture

   President Clinton ( and

 

  President Clinton ( and sponsored by ultra left wing Chuck Schumer-D ) signed on to a federal version of the this religious protection law.   Why isn't any one dragging them through this shit ? Why isn't Hillary denouncing her husband for having already opened the door for this law ?

 

  Also the gay CEO of Apple is horrified by the Religious Freedom law that might be passed in Indiana but Apple has more stores in Tehran, Iran than in all of Indiana.   You know Iran, where gays are executued ?  Why is he doing business with a country whose religious bigotry  makes Indiana look positively amateurish ?

 

  If I'm wrong about my information I'll admit it.

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

           Apple

 

 

                                      Apple products for all the gay hating Muslims in Tehran:    www.appletehran.com

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

 

 

 

   Apple apparently does like to discriminate here in the US.    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/20/503000/apple-store-refuses-to-sell-popular-devices-to-iranian-americans/

 

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Vastet's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I was going to post about the Arkansas issue and Wal Mart taking a stance against it yesterday, but the computer I was using was shit and I gave up. Totally forgot by the time I got home. Personally I think the issue is rather more complex than it is being portrayed. What about a store that refuses service to a customer that's located in a mall that won't tolerate such behaviour? Or vice versa? The whole thing is really stupid anyway. Put a damn sign in plain view that plainly states you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and you're set legally, right? Beyond?

The basic idea of religious freedoms was to let you have that religion but not to force it on others. By refusing to serve a gay person and saying that "you are gay and it is against my religion" is not what our laws say you can function.

The US constitution does not cover business practices, only government organisations.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Basically the way I view it is that the person what is next? A private ambulance service refusing to take a gay person to the hospital because the fucking CEO of the service says "we don't service gays because it is against my religion" then you have an issue of a gay person dying when they could have been wisked off to the hospital and lived.

Hospitals and ambulances are covered by the constitution. That isn't likely to happen unless EXC gets his way.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Every business serves "the public." Unless it's a state-owned service, I see no reason why they should be forced to serve anyone.

There is a private members only type of business. Gyms are like that

Those aren't private. All you need to do is be a customer and you get access. Anyone with the cash for a membership qualifies as a customer. I guarantee that most gyms won't tell a potential customer to screw off if they want to look over the premises.

Private means by invitation only, like a country club.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

President Clinton ( and sponsored by ultra left wing Chuck Schumer-D ) signed on to a federal version of the this religious protection law.   Why isn't any one dragging them through this shit ? Why isn't Hillary denouncing her husband for having already opened the door for this law ?

Also the gay CEO of Apple is horrified by the Religious Freedom law that might be passed in Indiana but Apple has more stores in Tehran, Iran than in all of Indiana.   You know Iran, where gays are executued ?  Why is he doing business with a country whose religious bigotry  makes Indiana look positively amateurish ?

If I'm wrong about my information I'll admit it.

You are wrong in a sense. 

The original law was applied differently. Now right winged christians are wanting similar state laws applied differently so that it hurts gays and benefits christians. The law in Indiana is not exactly the same as the federal law; it has been modified in specific areas.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/mar/29/fact-checking-march-29-news-shows/ http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ee8b2d9fc11c462eaa204dbee5e7253d/religious-freedom-laws-not-used-against-gays-past

The fact that you want to compare Iran to Indiana is just plain ridiculous and a fallacy. I suggest you stop copying Rush Limbaugh who is a walking cluster fuck of a fallacy himself.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/obvious-similarity-between-iran-indiana-news.html

 

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:Those aren't

Vastet wrote:
Those aren't private. All you need to do is be a customer and you get access. Anyone with the cash for a membership qualifies as a customer. I guarantee that most gyms won't tell a potential customer to screw off if they want to look over the premises. Private means by invitation only, like a country club.

I'm not talking about LA Fitness. I've been a member of a private gym and racquet club. Totally private and definitely for rich people. I got in because I knew someone who was already a member.

As for EMT's and Doctors rejecting gays

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-would-let-michigan-doctors-emts-refuse-to-treat-gay-patients/

I never mentioned the US Constitution. It isn't part of my argument that this state law (or state laws) is being applied to hurt people who are of different sexual orientation.

Vastet's picture

I guarantee the first EMT

I guarantee the first EMT who refuses to treat a patient will be fired and sued into bankruptcy, no matter what state passes what law. He or she will probably also have to go into hiding over death threats.

Private institutions like the gym you mention already can, and do, discriminate. This law won't change anything in that regard.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Beyond Saving's picture

Vastet wrote:I was going to

Vastet wrote:
I was going to post about the Arkansas issue and Wal Mart taking a stance against it yesterday, but the computer I was using was shit and I gave up. Totally forgot by the time I got home. Personally I think the issue is rather more complex than it is being portrayed. What about a store that refuses service to a customer that's located in a mall that won't tolerate such behaviour? Or vice versa? The whole thing is really stupid anyway. Put a damn sign in plain view that plainly states you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and you're set legally, right? Beyond?

Legally, no. If you put up a sign saying you will refuse service to blacks, you are violating several federal sand probably a few state and local laws. Discriminating against gays is less clear, but I wouldn't call it a slam dunk legal case.

However, I personally agree with iwbiek, nobody should be forced to serve anyone. One step further, I want bigots to advertise themselves. PLEASE put up a sign saying 'we don't serve none of them coons or fags' Because then I won't accidently give any of my money to your ignorant biggoted ass. Outlawing discrimination might make it less visible, but it doesn't make it disappear. Be open and honest, then I can avoid wasting my money on them. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Vastet's picture

I think you misunderstood my

I think you misunderstood my hypothetical. I didn't intend to suggest a sign that specifically discriminates against an easily identified portion of the population. I meant a sign that literally says "We reserve the right to refuse service to any customer at our discretion" or something similar.
Such signs are quite obviously posted at the entrances to every mall I've ever been in here. They are generally to allow malls to kick out teenagers who hang around too long, but the wording is vague enough that if the administration of a mall were so inclined, they could use it to discriminate.
It wouldn't last long, a few calls to the parent corporation would see a swift change in management, but for smaller stores it would be more difficult to prove discriminatory behaviour; and not all smaller stores operate under the umbrella of a parent corporation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The fact that you want to compare Iran to Indiana is just plain ridiculous and a fallacy. I suggest you stop copying Rush Limbaugh who is a walking cluster fuck of a fallacy himself.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/obvious-similarity-between-iran-indiana-news.html

 

 

    I listen to news outlets and pundits who carry water for both political parties and then draw my own conclusions.  Don't be so dismissive.    If Apple is selling products in Iran ( I provided the Apple link to their store in Iran ) then the only conclusion is that they don't mind doing business with a country that discriminates against gays in a way that even the most virulent gay hating bigot would never be allowed to do in the  US.  If Apple sells in Iran ( and they apparently do ) then it is a valid point that the gay CEO of Apple is utterly two-faced concerning his "outrage".

 

   If you have a link that proves Apple doesn't do business in Iran that would support your view.   ( Again, I already gave you a link to the Tehran Apple store )

   

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

     I'll read your

 

 

   I'll read your politifact link later about the details of the federal bill later.   I have to go towork.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

digitalbeachbum's picture

ProzacDeathWish wrote:way

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

way that even the most virulent gay hating bigot would never be allowed to do in the  US.  If Apple sells in Iran ( and they apparently do ) then it is a valid point that the gay CEO of Apple is utterly two-faced concerning his "outrage".

Apple doing business in Iran has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It is a strawman fallacy.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

digitalbeachbum

 

 

 

( F )   In no way is monitoring Tim Cook's business ethics a straw man fallacy.  If he does business with any gay-hating regime then it will be obvious that his concern for the welfare of gays ( or ethnic Chinese ) depends entirely upon what time zone they live in. ( The previous, lengthy post that point "F" was quoted from has dissappeared... )

 

  EDIT: I have discovered another of Apple / Tim Cook's shady business contracts currently in effect in the Middle East that proves Apple will knowingly set up shop in an very rich Muslim country that has a long history of abusing homosexuals.   I will hold off posting to give you time to reply to my previous post if you choose to.

 

 

 

    

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Antipatris's picture

What specific problem is

What specific problem is this meant to solve ?

ProzacDeathWish's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Apple

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Apple doing business in Iran has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It is a strawman fallacy.

 

   Perhaps, but Apple choosing to do business in Saudi Arabia has total relevancy regarding Tim Cook and the conflict of gay rights vs business ethics.  

  I already pointed out in my previous post ( that went missing ) that Apple, and therefore Tim Cook, already have a spotty record with human rights abuses regarding it's workers in China.     Even after these issues were brought up, Apple apparently took a lackadasical approach and allowed the horrid working conditions to persist.   Some Chinese worker even resorted to commiting suicide to escape the crushing workload and miserable living conditions in the worker dormitories. 

   www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep//05/workers-rights-flouted-apple-iphone-plant

   www.independent.co.uk./news/world/asia/apple-admits-it-has-a-human-rights-problem-6898617.html

 

 I previously pointed out that Cook, who stated "America's business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination in all it's forms is bad for business. At Apple we, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers' lives. We strive to do business in a way that is JUST AND FAIR.  That's why, on behalf of Apple, I'm standing to oppose this new wave of legislation-WHEREVER IT EMERGES.

Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY COME FROM. what they LOOK LIKE, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law allow in INDIANA or ARKANSAS ......WE WILL NEVER TOLERATE DISCRIMINATION."

 

 My previous post contained a link from the Jerusalem Post stating that Apple appeared to be scouting Iran as a possible business client now that trade sanctions against Iran seem to be on the way out. The article did maintain that at this point that had not been confirmed.

 

 I stated that it would be the pretty fucking ballsy for Tim Cook to go do business with a country like Iran that has a known record of extremely violent repression ( up to hanging ) of gays based upon their Islamic morality after denouncing Indiana for discriminating against gays who might not receive a wedding cake.  There is no false equivalency on my part.

 

  Well since my last post went bye bye I have discovered this eye opening piece of info concerning Apple:  www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-retailer-announces-opening-of-first-apple-stores-575777.html.    Apple does business in Saudi Arabia.    Straw manning ?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

 The first line from the wiki article states "The rights of LGBT people in Saudi Arabia are unrecognized.  Homosexuality is frequently a taboo subject in Saudi Arabian society and is punished with imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment, capital punishment, whipping/flogging and chemical castrations.  Transgenderism is generally associated with homosexuality."

  

 

      There is no way in hell that Tim Cook is unaware of this.    Thanks to Apple, the average Saudi can now use their I-Phones ( made in China ) to record the public beatings and executions of gays.

 

                                  

 

 

    I'm not straw manning Tim Cook.    I'm pointing out his gargantuan hipocrisy by his pretending to take the moral high ground and at the same time selectively choosing which group of religious bigots he is willing to make deals with.   With Tim Cook in charge, Apple's corporate policy is  ...do as I say, not as I do.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

        Former CEO of

 

 

      Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard calls out Tim Cook's hypocrisy in Wall Street Journal:  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/03/carly-fiorina-tim-cook-opposition-to-indiana-religious-freedom-law-hypocritical/

 

 

 

     From the article:  "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia" she said Thursday afternoon during an interview with Wall Street Journal reporters and editors.  "But I don't hear him being upset about that."

 

 

  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Antipatris's picture

The important thing here is

The important thing here is that the law itself is hypocritical. Anyone opposing it being a hypocrite themselves isn't going to change that in the least. Iit just gives it's defenders something else, besides the obvious, to focus on.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

Antipatris wrote:Iit just

Antipatris wrote:

Iit just gives it's defenders something else, besides the obvious, to focus on.

 

    I like focusing on an ultra rich, white, gay CEO who publicly whines about gay discrimination in the US but has no problem throwing Saudi gays under the bus if it means making a profit.   Using Tim Cook as a spokesman for gay rights makes about as much sense as using Lee Harvey Oswald as a spokesman for responsible gun ownership.

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

digitalbeachbum's picture

ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Apple doing business in Iran has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It is a strawman fallacy.

 

   Perhaps, but Apple choosing to do business in Saudi Arabia has total relevancy regarding Tim Cook and the conflict of gay rights vs business ethics.  

    I'm not straw manning Tim Cook.    I'm pointing out his gargantuan hipocrisy by his pretending to take the moral high ground and at the same time selectively choosing which group of religious bigots he is willing to make deals with.   With Tim Cook in charge, Apple's corporate policy is  ...do as I say, not as I do.

There are plenty of behind the scenes going on here. We have no idea if there were agreements made before Cook became the boss. We have no idea if he can stop selling them there. Where is the fine print? We just do not know.

The original discussion is about Indiana and how it was pointed out Cook bitched about the law. Then people like Rush pointed out that there were most stores in Iran than Indiana. WTF does that have any thing to do with things? Apple sells their products in almost every country in the world. I'm betting 99% of the world. How many states which have similar laws to Indiana's new law has Apple products being sold within their borders? Who the fuck cares? Business is business and if they stopped selling Apples in one state because of a law like this then it would hurt business because they would have to stop selling them in 12-18 states. Are they going to do that? No. Cook will find other ways to work his opinion in to the public eye and behind the scenes with political donations.

As for Iran. It's a whole other ball game. Cook's opinion wouldn't do shit there and neither would pulling the sales of the Apple products. The empty space would be filled with blackmarket people, cheap Chinese knock offs.

 

ProzacDeathWish's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:There

digitalbeachbum wrote:

There are plenty of behind the scenes going on here. We have no idea if there were agreements made before Cook became the boss.

 

  Whatever happened before Cook took over as Apple CEO is certainly relevant ...up to a point.  But he's the Big Cahuna now.  Lead by example or shut the fuck up.

 

 

  

 [quote =digitalbeachbum] We have no idea if he can stop selling them there. Where is the fine print? We just do not know.

 

   How convenient for Tim Cook.  He can take the moral high road and at the same time continue making profits from gay hating Saudi Arabia.   It's win, win !

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
The original discussion is about Indiana and how it was pointed out Cook bitched about the law.

 

   Cook is free to bitch about the Indiana law or any other topic for that matter.  His credibility is what's at stake.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Then people like Rush pointed out that there were most stores in Iran than Indiana. WTF does that have any thing to do with things?

 

 I agree.  It has nothing to do with the issue as I later admitted Rush just pulled that out of his ass.  I fell for his lies and paid the price.  My bad.   No US companies are currently doing business in Iran due to trade sanctions that will most like be suspended by the Obama administration.  Rush knew that and just made the shit up.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Apple sells their products in almost every country in the world. I'm betting 99% of the world. How many states which have similar laws to Indiana's new law has Apple products being sold within their borders? Who the fuck cares?
 

 

  Probably the kind of people who actually care are those that despise double-dealing, pious CEO's who denounce religious bigotry in the US and yet embrace it within Saudi Arabia.  That would be my guess.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Business is business and if they stopped selling Apples in one state because of a law like this then it would hurt business because they would have to stop selling them in 12-18 states. Are they going to do that?

 

   Of course not.  Profits trump ethics.

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
No. Cook will find other ways to work his opinion in to the public eye and behind the scenes with political donations.

 

 Oh, sure he will.  He'll do whatever it takes just as long as Apple doesn't have to make any sacrifices.   It's all good.

 

 

 

 

As for Iran. It's a whole other ball game. Cook's opinion wouldn't do shit there and neither would pulling the sales of the Apple products. The empty space would be filled with blackmarket people, cheap Chinese knock offs.

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:There

digitalbeachbum wrote:

There are plenty of behind the scenes going on here. We have no idea if there were agreements made before Cook became the boss.

 

  Whatever happened before Cook took over as Apple CEO is certainly relevant ...up to a point.  But he's the Big Cahuna now.  Lead by example or shut the fuck up.

 

 

  

 [quote =digitalbeachbum] We have no idea if he can stop selling them there. Where is the fine print? We just do not know.

 

   How convenient for Tim Cook.  He can take the moral high road and at the same time continue making profits from gay hating Saudi Arabia.   It's win, win !

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
The original discussion is about Indiana and how it was pointed out Cook bitched about the law.

 

   Cook is free to bitch about the Indiana law or any other topic for that matter.  His credibility is what's at stake.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Then people like Rush pointed out that there were most stores in Iran than Indiana. WTF does that have any thing to do with things?

 

 I agree.  It has nothing to do with the issue as I later admitted Rush just pulled that out of his ass.  I fell for his lies and paid the price.  My bad.   No US companies are currently doing business in Iran due to trade sanctions that will most like be suspended by the Obama administration.  Rush knew that and just made the shit up.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Apple sells their products in almost every country in the world. I'm betting 99% of the world. How many states which have similar laws to Indiana's new law has Apple products being sold within their borders? Who the fuck cares?
 

 

  Probably the kind of people who actually care are those that despise double-dealing, pious CEO's who denounce religious bigotry in the US and yet embrace it within Saudi Arabia.  That would be my guess.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Business is business and if they stopped selling Apples in one state because of a law like this then it would hurt business because they would have to stop selling them in 12-18 states. Are they going to do that?

 

   Of course not.  Profits trump ethics.

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
No. Cook will find other ways to work his opinion in to the public eye and behind the scenes with political donations.

 

 Oh, sure he will.  He'll do whatever it takes just as long as Apple doesn't have to make any sacrifices.   It's all good.

 

 

 

 

As for Iran. It's a whole other ball game. Cook's opinion wouldn't do shit there and neither would pulling the sales of the Apple products. The empty space would be filled with blackmarket people, cheap Chinese knock offs.

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:There

digitalbeachbum wrote:

There are plenty of behind the scenes going on here. We have no idea if there were agreements made before Cook became the boss.

 

  Whatever happened before Cook took over as Apple CEO is certainly relevant ...up to a point.  But he's the Big Cahuna now.  Lead by example or shut the fuck up.

 

 

  

 [quote =digitalbeachbum] We have no idea if he can stop selling them there. Where is the fine print? We just do not know.

 

   How convenient for Tim Cook.  He can take the moral high road and at the same time continue making profits from gay hating Saudi Arabia.   It's win, win !

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
The original discussion is about Indiana and how it was pointed out Cook bitched about the law.

 

   Cook is free to bitch about the Indiana law or any other topic for that matter.  His credibility is what's at stake.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Then people like Rush pointed out that there were most stores in Iran than Indiana. WTF does that have any thing to do with things?

 

 I agree.  It has nothing to do with the issue as I later admitted Rush just pulled that out of his ass.  I fell for his lies and paid the price.  My bad.   No US companies are currently doing business in Iran due to trade sanctions that will most like be suspended by the Obama administration.  Rush knew that and just made the shit up.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Apple sells their products in almost every country in the world. I'm betting 99% of the world. How many states which have similar laws to Indiana's new law has Apple products being sold within their borders? Who the fuck cares?
 

 

  Probably the kind of people who actually care are those that despise double-dealing, pious CEO's who denounce religious bigotry in the US and yet embrace it within Saudi Arabia.  That would be my guess.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Business is business and if they stopped selling Apples in one state because of a law like this then it would hurt business because they would have to stop selling them in 12-18 states. Are they going to do that?

 

   Of course not.  Profits trump ethics.

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
No. Cook will find other ways to work his opinion in to the public eye and behind the scenes with political donations.

 

 Oh, sure he will.  He'll do whatever it takes just as long as Apple doesn't have to make any sacrifices.   It's all good.

 

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
As for Iran. It's a whole other ball game. Cook's opinion wouldn't do shit there and neither would pulling the sales of the Apple products.

 

  As I stated there are no Apple stores in Iran....yet.  If Cook signs a deal with Iran then he is going in with eyes wide open to provide products to one of the world's most serious gay rights abusers.  The political and ethical implications of that move would be too much to ignore.  Would you still embrace cognitive dissonance and defend him then..."cause it's just "business".

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
The empty space would be filled with blackmarket people, cheap Chinese knock offs.

 

 

  I-Phones are already made in China.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

   PS, sorry for the

 

  PS, sorry for the awkward formatting.  The site must still be buggy. 

Antipatris's picture

ProzacDeathWish wrote:   

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

    I like focusing on an ultra rich, white, gay CEO who publicly whines about gay discrimination in the US but has no problem throwing Saudi gays under the bus if it means making a profit.   Using Tim Cook as a spokesman for gay rights makes about as much sense as using Lee Harvey Oswald as a spokesman for responsible gun ownership.

 

Right.

So the law itself being hypocritical is a given.

You'd just rather talk about this Tim Cook fella.

 

Okay.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

Antipatris wrote: Right.So

Antipatris wrote:

 

Right.

So the law itself being hypocritical is a given.

You'd just rather talk about this Tim Cook fella.

 

Okay.

             

 

                 The national media chose to focus it's attention upon Tim Cook.  Not me.  His status as a gay man and a powerful CEO of a multinational company now makes him a permanent part of the narrative and subjects him to the same scrutiny as any other business owner who decides to step into the spot light and make a stand, pro or con. 

    At this point his own business practices are of major significance, as they should be.  He talks the talk but as a matter of record he doesn't live up to his own lofty standards regarding human rights versus Apple business practices outside of the US.   Do you dispute that ?

 I think most right wing conservatives of the religious kind are douche bags.   I'm a conservative atheist and I'm not motivated by "What would Jesus do ?"  I do not consider gays as "sodomites" or sexual deviants, nor do I avoid them.  What I do not approve of is governmental micromanagement of nearly every aspect of our lives.  I don't see government ( from the right or the left ) as the automatic solution to every problem in life.  I believe in freedom of association.  Sometimes that might work in my favor and sometimes it won't.   In a large capitalist nation of more than 300,000,000 people not being able to have your wedding catered because you are a ....insert category....amounts to a minor inconvenience.   It's not the same thing as losing your life by governmental decree ( ya know, like in Saudi Arabia where Tim Cook is currently doing business. )

 

  If a bakery said they don't serve atheists then fine.  I'll go elsewhere.  Why would I want to do business with them in the first place ?   I still believe they should retain the right to only serve the customers who they choose to serve.  An atheist baker could return the favor by excluding religious persons....or not.  It should be their choice.   No one's life was shattered in the process.  Learn to deal with the fact that somebody, somewhere isn't going to approve of you for any number of reasons and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

 Regarding essential services such as medical care I feel they should be held to a more stringent standard.  Letting someone bleed to death in a car wreck would not be an acceptable level of autonomy for reasons that should be obvious.  It should be considered a form of criminal negligence. 

 

 I am open to modifying my views ( eg, I used to be a Christian... now I'm not ) depending upon the degree of the perceived hardship.  Nevertheless everyone, including minorities of any variety, should have the right to free association even if it entails the right to exercise exclusivity.   BTW, my girl friend used to belong to a gym that would have excluded me based upon my gender.  I was left emotionally scarred but I lived through it.

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Antipatris's picture

ProzacDeathWish wrote: The

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 The national media chose to focus it's attention upon Tim Cook.  Not me.  His status as a gay man and a powerful CEO of a multinational company now makes him a permanent part of the narrative and subjects him to the same scrutiny as any other business owner who decides to step into the spot light and make a stand, pro or con. 

    At this point his own business practices are of major significance, as they should be.  He talks the talk but as a matter of record he doesn't live up to his own lofty standards regarding human rights versus Apple business practices outside of the US.   Do you dispute that ?

 I think most right wing conservatives of the religious kind are douche bags.   I'm a conservative atheist and I'm not motivated by "What would Jesus do ?"  I do not consider gays as "sodomites" or sexual deviants, nor do I avoid them.  What I do not approve of is governmental micromanagement of nearly every aspect of our lives.  I don't see government ( from the right or the left ) as the automatic solution to every problem in life.  I believe in freedom of association.  Sometimes that might work in my favor and sometimes it won't.   In a large capitalist nation of more than 300,000,000 people not being able to have your wedding catered because you are a ....insert category....amounts to a minor inconvenience.   It's not the same thing as losing your life by governmental decree ( ya know, like in Saudi Arabia where Tim Cook is currently doing business. )

 

  If a bakery said they don't serve atheists then fine.  I'll go elsewhere.  Why would I want to do business with them in the first place ?   I still believe they should retain the right to only serve the customers who they choose to serve.  An atheist baker could return the favor by excluding religious persons....or not.  It should be their choice.   No one's life was shattered in the process.  Learn to deal with the fact that somebody, somewhere isn't going to approve of you for any number of reasons and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

 Regarding essential services such as medical care I feel they should be held to a more stringent standard.  Letting someone bleed to death in a car wreck would not be an acceptable level of autonomy for reasons that should be obvious.  It should be considered a form of criminal negligence. 

 

 I am open to modifying my views ( eg, I used to be a Christian... now I'm not ) depending upon the degree of the perceived hardship.  Nevertheless everyone, including minorities of any variety, should have the right to free association even if it entails the right to exercise exclusivity.   BTW, my girl friend used to belong to a gym that would have excluded me based upon my gender.  I was left emotionally scarred but I lived through it.

 

 

You never actually struck me as someone who gives a crap about what the national media choses the focus on, but sure, okay, he's a hypocrite, I don't dispute that. He also would have to be pretty dumb not to realise he would have this thrown in his face when he spoke up, so I'd be interested to know why he did it anyway. Somebody should ask him.

I just think that doesn't make the law any less hypocritical, nor do I think it's something we should just shrug off because there's worse going on elsewhere. That would be like not treating a broken leg because ebola exists.

And I'm not sure why this is always reduced to cakes. Makes it sound silly, I guess. And btw, isn't it also legal there to fire people just because they're gay ? Oh wait, that was already the case.

Modify your views ? Unless you figure this law is not hypocritical at all, your views are just fine with me.

Also, it's perfectly possible to disapprove of someone and sell them stuff anyway. Why not deal with that ?

(And then there's the whole sticky issue of the bible not even supporting this anti-gay crap anyway, but that's only fun to talk about with actual christians)

 

ProzacDeathWish's picture

      The right to free

 

     The right to free association is my overriding concern, up to and including the right to exclude.  That means by default that not everyone gets through the door.  And yes, it would actually constitute a form of discrimination in the literal sense.  I'm all for it, even if it means I am myself excluded from certain fraternities. 

 

   Mensa is a club that discriminates.  http://www.mensa.org/about-us

 

                          From the website:   "HOW DO I QUALIFY FOR MENSA ?

 

                                                Membership in Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper

                                                two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been

                                                properly administered and supervised.  There is no other qualification or disqualification

                                                for initial membership eligibility.....

 

                                                Candidates for membership of Mensa must achieve a score at or above the 98 percentile

                                                on a standard test of intelligence ( a score that is greater than that achieved by 98 percent of the

                                                general population taking the test ).....

 

                                                Mensa has no other eligibility requirements other than IQ testing."

 

 

                                  Mensa discriminates against people of lesser intellect.  I'll never get into Mensa.   More power to them

 

 

 

 

 

   

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

Antipatris wrote:Also, it's

Antipatris wrote:

Also, it's perfectly possible to disapprove of someone and sell them stuff anyway. Why not deal with that ?

 

 

 

    Of course it's possible to do business with clients that are objectionalble.  That should always be the preferred option but if a business chooses to emphasize personal beliefs at the expense of making greater profits they should be allowed to do so without interference.   As long as it's not a health or safety issue no potential customer has yet died from being told "No" by a business. 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Beyond Saving's picture

ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Antipatris wrote:

Also, it's perfectly possible to disapprove of someone and sell them stuff anyway. Why not deal with that ?

 

 

 

    Of course it's possible to do business with clients that are objectionalble.  That should always be the preferred option but if a business chooses to emphasize personal beliefs at the expense of making greater profits they should be allowed to do so without interference.   As long as it's not a health or safety issue no potential customer has yet died from being told "No" by a business. 

 

 

 

Given that the two large cases involve cake and pizza, they might actually live longer.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Vastet's picture

ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
President Clinton ( and sponsored by ultra left wing Chuck Schumer-D ) signed on to a federal version of the this religious protection law.   Why isn't any one dragging them through this shit?

Since noone has directly responded to this, I figured I would.

I think it is because noone gave a rats ass about the lgbt community in the 90's. Very likely it would have been political suicide to do anything differently. As recently as 2004, ~70% of the US population was against gay marriage. Today the number is under 50%, showing incredible strides have been made in the last 10 years. But in the 90's there would have been no support, and significant backlash.
It basically amounts not to what a politician in the 90's was in favour of or against, but what the general population of the US as a whole was in favour of or against.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

   President Clinton also

 

  President Clinton also signed into law the DOMA ( defense of marriage act ) that sought to legally define marriage as strictly between heterosexuals.  He has since flipped on the issue ( as of 2013 ).  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

Vastet's picture

But again, it would have

But again, it would have been political suicide to do anything else. Blaming Clinton for that is like blaming Washington for slavery.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Antipatris's picture

Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Antipatris wrote:

Also, it's perfectly possible to disapprove of someone and sell them stuff anyway. Why not deal with that ?

Of course it's possible to do business with clients that are objectionalble.  That should always be the preferred option but if a business chooses to emphasize personal beliefs at the expense of making greater profits they should be allowed to do so without interference.   As long as it's not a health or safety issue no potential customer has yet died from being told "No" by a business. 

Given that the two large cases involve cake and pizza, they might actually live longer.

 

Then I guess if people want to engage in religious bigotry and get away with it, the key is to pick on a minority that's small enough that it won't eat into their profits too much, and is still irrationally reviled enough that discriminating against them might even make them some money. Cool.

Oh, and I feel you on the mensa thing, man. It's like me and the olympic swimteam. Fuckers keep rejecting my application. It's like, discrimination or something.

 

Anyway, I'm told it got "fixed".  Oh well, back to shutting down planned parenthood.

Beyond Saving's picture

Antipatris wrote:Then

Antipatris wrote:

Then I guess if people want to engage in religious bigotry and get away with it, the key is to pick on a minority that's small enough that it won't eat into their profits too much, and is still irrationally reviled enough that discriminating against them might even make them some money. Cool.

Why not?

My big question is why the fuck a gay couple would want to give money to a caterer or baker who is a bigot anyway. Personally, I think all of them should hang big signs out front declaring their bigotry to the world. I recently discovered that that the owner of a restaurant I frequented is a fucking racist asshole. I no longer frequent the place, but it kind of pisses me off how much money I spent there for years. If he'd have just worn the KKK outfit, I could have changed my habits much earlier, and hopefully some of the other customers would do the same. I would certainly expect that his Indian and black clientel would change their minds. Of course, some gays still eat at Chick fil A, so maybe some would decide the good food was worth paying a racist. But at least they would be doing so fully informed.

Suppressing bigotry doesn't make it disappear. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Vastet's picture

I used to steadfastly

I used to steadfastly disagree with Beyond on this, but I am more in his camp now. So long as no publically funded or government supported/related institutions are permitted to refuse service, I just don't see it being a major problem. It might actually increase the market for jobs as bigots do battle with bigots and unbiased people refuse to work for either.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

I can understand Beyond's

I can understand Beyond's point of view but if every one started airing their laundry every one would let their egos decide where they wanted to eat or shop. The entire economy would collapse.

As for the pizza place, they said it right. They would serve pizza to them in the shop but not do their gay wedding. Enough said.

Vastet's picture

Nah not enough people are so

Nah not enough people are so polarised on so many issues to ruin the economy. There would be a rash of bankruptcies for a couple years at most, and then things would settle down as people realised that fighting ideology through business is a foolish and extremely expensive thing to do.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Antipatris's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:Why

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why not?

My big question is why the fuck a gay couple would want to give money to a caterer or baker who is a bigot anyway. Personally, I think all of them should hang big signs out front declaring their bigotry to the world. I recently discovered that that the owner of a restaurant I frequented is a fucking racist asshole. I no longer frequent the place, but it kind of pisses me off how much money I spent there for years. If he'd have just worn the KKK outfit, I could have changed my habits much earlier, and hopefully some of the other customers would do the same. I would certainly expect that his Indian and black clientel would change their minds. Of course, some gays still eat at Chick fil A, so maybe some would decide the good food was worth paying a racist. But at least they would be doing so fully informed.

Suppressing bigotry doesn't make it disappear. 

Neither does protecting it.

"Hopefully", yeah.... I think I may have slightly less faith in people there than you do.

Damn, how did that happen ?

iwbiek's picture

Bigotry should be protected.

Bigotry should be protected. I'm sorry, but it should be, as long as no state institution is endorsing it.  Free speech is either free or it isn't.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Vastet's picture

I found this while surfing

I found this while surfing the news.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/most-americans-side-with-gays-in-religious-freedom-disputes-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAaCKTi

A clear majority believe there should not be such a law, which basically suggests that a clear majority would boycott any business that actually refused service to a customer based on bigotry. Meaning that such a law could not hurt anyone but the bigots.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:I found this

Vastet wrote:
I found this while surfing the news. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/most-americans-side-with-gays-in-religious-freedom-disputes-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAaCKTi A clear majority believe there should not be such a law, which basically suggests that a clear majority would boycott any business that actually refused service to a customer based on bigotry. Meaning that such a law could not hurt anyone but the bigots.

Yeah I saw the same article.

This law isn't needed. It's a crow bar to open up another can of worms down the road.

ProzacDeathWish's picture

Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Suppressing bigotry doesn't make it disappear. 

 

                                                                                                    

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.