TOPIC: Indiana's new discrimination law....

I personally don't think a law should have been necessary... But only because, in my view, people have a right to be discriminatory.

I don't think anyone else has a right to restrict their opinions or hinder their choice of business practices. Putting up with their ignorant views is simply a natural consequence of living in a society where we have the right to free speech and self-determination.

Speaking as a homosexual man, I believe any business or individual has a right to discriminate or deny me service as they see fit. Although I may think them stupid and illogical for doing so, I support their right to do so. (Otherwise, how can I claim to have a right to any of my own opinions which others may disagree with?)

I have no problem with the recently passed law, other than the unfortunate fact that apparently a law was seen as necessary to support what I see as a natural right. I see GenCon's public letter as unnecessary at best, and a pathetic PR stunt at worst.

I disagree I don't think anyone should be treated less because of prejudices. Are you saying it is right to make blacks seat in a particular section of a resturant or the back of a bus?

Sorry but I think we have made progress by not allowing those bigotTed ways to continue. You don't have to like someone to serve them. I don't care if you like me but why shouldn't I be treated as you treat others?

I don't think that segregation is fundamentally right. I don't think it's moral. I don't think it's logical. And I would detest anyone who thinks it is or wishes to enforce any sort of segregation.

But if it is *their* bus, *their* business, or *their* decision about who they wish to interact with, then I respect their right to choose.

Everyone else (myself included) then has the option to refuse to use their services or interact with them.

I feel this way because I strongly oppose the alternative: To demand someone acts in a way you would prefer they act is to deny them their fundamental rights to identity.

You might as well turn everyone into a robot, programmed to act exactly as you see "proper" to act.

Unless someone is *actively* interfering in someone's life, no one has the right to dictate another person's behavior. No matter how convinced you subjectively are that your perspective is the only correct one.

I'm not attempting to convince anyone here though. Just using the opportunity to express my opinion, since what's been expressed thus far is so one-sided.

My, we are quite the cynic. So all the businesses boycotting Indiana or considering it, all the protesters, the city of San Francisco, and the state of Connecticut are all just doing this as a publicity stunt?

If someone chooses to run a business for the public, then they have the rights and responsibilities of doing so, and that means you do not have the right to discriminate against anyone.

bpsymington wrote: If someone chooses to run a business for the public, then they have the rights and responsibilities of doing so, and that means you do not have the right to discriminate against anyone.

Few create businesses "for the public", instead they create them to provide for themselves and their family by providing some sort of service the public is willing to pay for.

In my humble view, there is no difference between the person who would force a baker to bake a cake for a gay marriage and the person who would prevent two men from getting married. Both are trying to dictate behaviors that others should follow based on their own morality.

If I walk into a bakery and order a wedding cake. I should be sold a wedding cake if I can pay for it. I don't ask what his political, moral, social, religious views are because walking into a bakery I expect to get similar treatment to the customer before and after me.

If a business open to a public can discriminate in who they sale to then shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate in who they hire? And I am talking about legal discrimination not in choosing one candidate over another. I am talking about deciding that one category of people will not be hired because of prejudices. It is their business right?

jedibcg wrote: If I walk into a bakery and order a wedding cake. I should be sold a wedding cake if I can pay for it.
...
I am talking about deciding that one category of people will not be hired because of prejudices.

Would I discriminate? Nope. Should they discriminate? Nope. Is it moral? Nope. But these are all my personal beliefs.

Should it be illegal? In my opinion that is a very different and much more complicated question.

Kirk Bauer wrote:

jedibcg wrote: If I walk into a bakery and order a wedding cake. I should be sold a wedding cake if I can pay for it.
...
I am talking about deciding that one category of people will not be hired because of prejudices.

Would I discriminate? Nope. Should they discriminate? Nope. Is it moral? Nope. But these are all my personal beliefs.

Should it be illegal? In my opinion that is a very different and much more complicated question.

And I respect that but don't agree with it. I do think it should be illegal.

jedibcg wrote: And I respect that but don't agree with it. I do think it should be illegal.

And I respect that. But some people think that gay marriage should be illegal. And that's where it gets tricky: if you allow some morality to be legally applied but not other morality then you have an inconsistent system. Who decides which morals and personal opinions should be laws and which shouldn't?

We the people have to decide that of course. Someone could think murder or incest is morally acceptable, but as a people we don't.

jedibcg wrote: We the people have to decide that of course. Someone could think murder or incest is morally acceptable, but as a people we don't.

Interesting. Same sex marriage was outlawed in Ohio's constitution by a majority of The People. It may be that soon that the majority of The People are forced to comply with a law with which they do not agree.

cdsmith wrote:

jedibcg wrote: We the people have to decide that of course. Someone could think murder or incest is morally acceptable, but as a people we don't.

Interesting. Same sex marriage was outlawed in Ohio's constitution by a majority of The People. It may be that soon that the majority of The People are forced to comply with a law with which they do not agree.

Sorry I know nothing of Ohio law, so I haven't a clue what you are talking about.