Gov. seeks to 'clarify' Indiana 'religious freedom' law

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DrTaffy said:
Where is the hypocrisy? You can boycott him, he can boycott you. Perfect symmetry.

You seem to be the one saying that you should be able to boycott him but he should not be allowed to boycott you. That is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Organized boycotts–for any reason–amount to extortion. They’re no different than some mob goon barging into some restaurant owner’s office and saying “buy my booze or I’ll blow your joint up.” Sure we have a right to do business where we please, but organizing a boycott is something else and should be outlawed.
 
bibcat said:
Organized boycotts–for any reason–amount to extortion. They’re no different than some mob goon barging into some restaurant owner’s office and saying “buy my booze or I’ll blow your joint up.” Sure we have a right to do business where we please, but organizing a boycott is something else and should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
Be very careful here. Have Catholics ever organised a boycott of an abortion supporter for example. Are you saying that such Catholic-organised actions should be illegal?

rossum
 
rossum said:
Be very careful here. Have Catholics ever organised a boycott of an abortion supporter for example. Are you saying that such Catholic-organised actions should be illegal?

rossum
Click to expand...
If so, then–sadly–yes I am saying exactly that.
 
bibcat said:
Organized boycotts–for any reason–amount to extortion.
Click to expand...
No, really no. They are a perfectly legitimate and peaceful form of protest. Yes, even when the protesters disagree with you.
bibcat said:
They’re no different than some mob goon barging into some restaurant owner’s office and saying “buy my booze or I’ll blow your joint up.”
Click to expand...
So how is orthodox catholics refusing service to gays different from some mob goon barging into every gay guy’s home and saying “turn straight or I’ll blow your joint up.” :ehh:

If you cannot see the difference between a boycott and organised violence, I’m not sure there is much point in discussion.
bibcat said:
Sure we have a right to do business where we please, but organizing a boycott is something else and should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
So we have a right to do business ‘where we please’, as long as you agree with ‘where we please’ happens to be? :nope:
 
An organized boycott might not explicitly threaten physical violence, but it still amounts to extortion, as defined by threat of economic harm if a business does not behave in a way pleasing to the boy otters.
 
DrTaffy said:
No, really no. They are a perfectly legitimate and peaceful form of protest. Yes, even when the protesters disagree with you.

So how is orthodox catholics refusing service to gays different from some mob goon barging into every gay guy’s home and saying “turn straight or I’ll blow your joint up.” :ehh:

If you cannot see the difference between a boycott and organised violence, I’m not sure there is much point in discussion.

So we have a right to do business ‘where we please’, as long as you agree with ‘where we please’ happens to be? :nope:
Click to expand...
Agreed. A boycott is a peaceful and effective protest.
 
bibcat said:
An organized boycott might not explicitly threaten physical violence, but it still amounts to extortion, as defined by threat of economic harm if a business does not behave in a way pleasing to the boy otters.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly legal to withhold spending money at an establishment if you do not like the way the establishment runs its business. Its called freedom of choice. BTW I boycott McDonalds because the food sucks and service if poor. Uh oh, better put me in jail!
 
Sure its legal you can run around chanting; “Republicans hate gay people”. Being the real claim. “Ban the ancient books” we heard it here on this thread. Labeling people with an assumed agenda of discrimination.

You can boycott anything you want but when you stereotype people in the process for their 1st amendment rights then its wrong. The law does not authorize or promote or in any way does it encourage discrimination towards anyone. The law is there to determine when rights conflict with one another. To assume results and intent is just that, an assumption based of the feelings of people who assume they will be discriminated against.

The optics are divisive and; "everyone should be free to live and work according to their convictions, without fear that the government will come in and force them to do something contrary to their sincerely held beliefs.-Fiedorek” I guess the gay community doesn’t feel that way which is clear here. “ban the ancient books”.
 
bibcat said:
Organized boycotts–for any reason–amount to extortion. They’re no different than some mob goon barging into some restaurant owner’s office and saying “buy my booze or I’ll blow your joint up.” Sure we have a right to do business where we please, but organizing a boycott is something else and should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
Boycotts are a perfectly legal form of non-violent protest and long recognized as a protected form of free speech. Consider the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a very famous and effective boycott that began in 1955 after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus. Boycotts were an essential part of the civil rights movement that brought about much needed change in this country. I would encourage you to consider the bigger picture when considering the issue, rather than limiting focus within the context of this particular law and the reaction to it.

Peace and joy.
 
The bigger picture is its clear the Democrats choose to box religion and adopt a kind of tolerance not liberty long as its not too burdensome. We will tolerate you as long as we can force abortion and everything else we profit off of. Its about profiting off gays with a false concern about anyone as we see with Obama. And the gays protest along with the same ideal Obama applies, and when they are boxed and barely tolerated again, then they will understand. Not seeing the bigger picture is contrary to this supposed agenda, its destructive to yourself. But as long as it appears self serving, the heck with everyone else. Because its all about YOU! “Ban the ancient books”

I would think real hard about it, you won’t like it if a Putin arrives and bans YOU! And then you will want everyone here to speak up for you like here with inclusiveness? And where do you think the businesses will target sales when your banned? They care only about their profit and will serve whoever.

You want to define who we are as Americans when we are 75% Christian of various orders. And with lines such as “ban the ancient books”. All the while when its about being inclusive of YOU without hurting ourselves. Narrowminded is what it is.
 
spes_salvi said:
I’m confused about what he believes in. If he thinks businesses have a right to make boycotts and refuse services on the basis of beliefs, then doesn’t this mean he agrees with the essence of this law? This law is even more restricted because it’s specific to religious beliefs and certain other conditions need to be met.
Click to expand...
Allow me to clarify a rather glaring error in your statement above. Boycotting is refusing to deal with or patronize a store, business or organization, in an attempt to express disapproval and encourage change. “Refusing service” or public accommodation is not “boycotting.” Please do not be confused by that. In fact it could very well be a form illegal discrimination under certain circumstances. Legally speaking, you are talking apples and oranges. They’re not even close to the same thing. Please understand that I’m not trying to be derogatory here, but that is a misunderstanding that could really get someone in hot water legally speaking.

Peace and joy.
 
Tbrightson said:
It is perfectly legal to withhold spending money at an establishment if you do not like the way the establishment runs its business. Its called freedom of choice. BTW I boycott McDonalds because the food sucks and service if poor. Uh oh, better put me in jail!
Click to expand...
Not buying food at McDonalds because you don’t like the food and service is fine. Organizing a boycott over mass media because you don’t like something McDonalds does is de facto extortion. That’s the difference.
 
SavannahGal said:
Allow me to clarify a rather glaring error in your statement above. Boycotting is refusing to deal with or patronize a store, business or organization, in an attempt to express disapproval and encourage change. “Refusing service” or public accommodation is not “boycotting.” Please do not be confused by that. In fact it could very well be a form illegal discrimination under certain circumstances. Legally speaking, you are talking apples and oranges. They’re not even close to the same thing. Please understand that I’m not trying to be derogatory here, but that is a misunderstanding that could really get someone in hot water legally speaking.

Peace and joy.
Click to expand...
But there’s nothing morally wrong about refusing business to sodomites, especially when doing business with or serving them furthers their agenda (e.g. making a wedding cake or floral bouquet for a same-sex “wedding”). Indeed, God properly requires that we do exactly that. Organizing a mass avoidance of a business to force a change in policy is de facto extortion. Big difference.
 
SavannahGal said:
Boycotts are a perfectly legal form of non-violent protest and long recognized as a protected form of free speech. Consider the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a very famous and effective boycott that began in 1955 after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus. Boycotts were an essential part of the civil rights movement that brought about much needed change in this country. I would encourage you to consider the bigger picture when considering the issue, rather than limiting focus within the context of this particular law and the reaction to it.

Peace and joy.
Click to expand...
Mass transit in Montgomery, Alabama was a government agency that was forced to obey a law (blacks in back of the bus etc.) forced upon it by elites, most likely against the will of the Alabama working class. Thus, organizing a boycott of it was not extortion, since the government held all of the power in this instance. Organizing a boycott of private business entities DOES amount to de facto extortion. Big difference.
 
bibcat said:
Mass transit in Montgomery, Alabama was a government agency that was forced to obey a law (blacks in back of the bus etc.) forced upon it by elites, most likely against the will of the Alabama working class.
Click to expand...
::jaw drop::

🤦:
 
bibcat said:
Organizing a mass avoidance of a business to force a change in policy is de facto extortion. Big difference.
Click to expand...
So, you do not support organizing a boycott of tea because the King put a tax on it?

rossum
 
rossum said:
So, you do not support organizing a boycott of tea because the King put a tax on it?

rossum
Click to expand...
The East India Tea Company was a state (Crown) agency that actually undercut local businesses.
 
bibcat said:
Organized boycotts–for any reason–amount to extortion. They’re no different than some mob goon barging into some restaurant owner’s office and saying “buy my booze or I’ll blow your joint up.” Sure we have a right to do business where we please, but organizing a boycott is something else and should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
As much as people might not like what you say there is history of that thinking in our law. At one time unions were illegal as a restraint on trade. This of course swung the other way where now an employer is forced to accept unions as the only labor source. Likewise at one time you could chose to not serve people for any reason. Now you are obligated to serve people of a certain class. At one time you could chose to not buy products. Now by law you must buy certain products, e.g. health insurance. In my opinion the best situation is complete economic freedom of association. But that is the opinion of a very small minority and certainly not the law of the land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top