GenCon threatens to exit Indy over 'religious freedom' measure

[Denny347]

Boycotting is fine.

Demanding someone else's property at government gunpoint is not.

"Demanding" is still just speech. What gunpoint?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think the most reprehensible action a government can take is to make moral decisions (by which I mean "decisions which affect the rights of individuals or groups") based on monetary concerns. This particular statute is a "moral" one, in that it attempts to reassert the rights of business owners to religious freedom in the face of SLAP lawsuits intended to force business owners to support causes contrary to their religious beliefs.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think the most reprehensible action a government can take is to make moral decisions (by which I mean "decisions which affect the rights of individuals or groups") based on monetary concerns. This particular statute is a "moral" one, in that it attempts to reassert the rights of business owners to religious freedom in the face of SLAP lawsuits intended to force business owners to support causes contrary to their religious beliefs.

How is providing a product supporting a cause? If I sell you a car and you drive it to a gay wedding did I just support gay marriage? If you drive it to an anti gay marriage rally did I just support that?

 

[steveh_131]

"Demanding" is still just speech. What gunpoint?

The government gunpoint used on the Cakeshop in Colorado. The government gunpoint that this legislation is attempting to prevent.

 

[steveh_131]

How is providing a product supporting a cause? If I sell you a car and you drive it to a gay wedding did I just support gay marriage? If you drive it to an anti gay marriage rally did I just support that?

So, again, if you're a printer and a WBC member asks you to print a 'God Hates Fags' sign for him to carry at a cop's funeral, you're not supporting him, right? I mean, you're not carrying the sign around. He is.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, again, if you're a printer and a WBC member asks you to print a 'God Hates Fags' sign for him to carry at a cop's funeral, you're not supporting him, right? I mean, you're not carrying the sign around. He is.

Already addressed.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

How is providing a product supporting a cause? If I sell you a car and you drive it to a gay wedding did I just support gay marriage? If you drive it to an anti gay marriage rally did I just support that?

Got distracted and posted my comment untimely. HOWEVER, as has been said elsewhere, why should any business be forced to provide a service in support of an activity of which they disapprove? I don't notice gays being forced to attend a church (although we have a gay acquaintance who joined the Catholic Church a couple years ago), nor do I notice school teachers being forced to carry firearms to protect their students, so why should such folks feel they have a right to force their particular beliefs on people whose beliefs they have rejected? Basically, this is a case of one group saying "you must be compelled to act as though you believe what I believe, even though you are opposed."

 

[ilikeguns]

Which are they, kids in adult bodies or a group with deep pockets?

They have just as much right to protest the law as you do to support it, and they have just as much right to boycott as you do a "no guns" establishment, no?



So gays haven't been refused service because of being gay? You do understand the sign thing is a hypothetical based on a post further upthread, not something people believe is currently being done, yes?

They are both, those things are not mutually exclusive. They can protest all they want, that's fine. They don't have to live here, and most of them don't. If they want to take their show elsewhere they are free to do so. The problem, for me, is when, or if, the governor let's one group of people, who aren't affected by our laws except for the few days they are here, dictate whether or not to sign a Bill that has passed our legislature.. Also, comparing a convention trying to influence pending state law with threats, to me standing on my principles and not patronizing a single business for their support of something I don't believe in, is a ridiculous argument. I am not trying to coerce an entire state into my way of thinking.


Edit for clarification: I do not mean to say that the convention is wrong for saying that they will leave. That's fine. My only problem would be IF the state caves to the threat. Whether you agree with the law in question or not, allowing any single group, especially a very temporary group in terms of time spent in state, to dictate which laws to pass or not pass is ridiculous.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Got distracted and posted my comment untimely. HOWEVER, as has been said elsewhere, why should any business be forced to provide a service in support of an activity of which they disapprove? I don't notice gays being forced to attend a church (although we have a gay acquaintance who joined the Catholic Church a couple years ago), nor do I notice school teachers being forced to carry firearms to protect their students, so why should such folks feel they have a right to force their particular beliefs on people whose beliefs they have rejected? Basically, this is a case of one group saying "you must be compelled to act as though you believe what I believe, even though you are opposed."

How does buying something from you force beliefs on you?

Do you believe that supply and demand ultimately set price? If so, if supply is limited for Group A then do they not become second class citizens economically? Was this not the whole point of laws such as the fair housing act?

 

[Denny347]

The government gunpoint used on the Cakeshop in Colorado. The government gunpoint that this legislation is attempting to prevent.

Ahhh. Scared of the "what ifs". Different states, different laws. In reality, this is pandering at its best.

 

[halfmileharry]

Maybe when everyone reads and understands all of it we could add a poll.

 

[steveh_131]

Ahhh. Scared of the "what ifs". Different states, different laws. In reality, this is pandering at its best.

I never said it wasnt. Why do you care? Do you support property rights or not?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ahhh. Scared of the "what ifs". Different states, different laws. In reality, this is pandering at its best.

So when (or maybe if) the state takes up constitutional carry again, we shouldn't use the other states as exampes of those that have already adopted it to demonstrate the blood in the streets type claims are a bunch of hooey?

 

[Libertarian01]

Where are the cries of: "government shouldn't be involved in marriage to begin with"?

To HoughMade,

It would appear that I lost that argument a LONG time ago, although I hold to it 100%!

Regards,

Doug

PS - If we want to have that discussion I will be happy to.

 

[bwframe]

The Governor will settle this for us tomorrow.

Gov. Mike Pence plans to sign controversial "religious freedom" legislation in a private ceremony Thursday.

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug,

You have assembled an argument that could just as easily be used to defend insurance mandates, wage controls, price controls, or any other market-destroying government intervention.

One could echo you, verbatim, defending Obamacare: "Corporations get benefits, but at the same time they don't want the government to make them do things they don't like!"

Just because two or more people run a business corporately, does not make their private property a matter of public policy. Whatever gripes you have about corporate business law should be discussed on their own merits -- not used as an excuse to subvert private property.

Do not let emotions cause you to abandon principles and sound reasoning.

No free market -- or free anything -- exists under the presence of government mandated placards and/or armbands designed to brand people for their beliefs.

I respectfully ask you examine your principles and explain how you can endorse all of this government force on a matter that is not even the government's business.

To Rambone (et alia),

"You have assembled an argument that could just as easily be used to defend insurance mandates, wage controls, price controls, or any other market-destroying government intervention. One could echo you, verbatim, defending Obamacare: "Corporations get benefits, but at the same time they don't want the government to make them do things they don't like!" - Partially this is true. There has NEVER EVER EVER been a time when merchants (read: businesses) have not had to follow some rules! Government (ie. the State) has a very vested interest in how businesses operate under the very umbrella of protections that the State provides! The State provides an infrastructure both physical and legal, so I would argue that the State has paid for having a say. Back to the Code of Hammurabi (circa 1790 BC) (http://www.constitution.org/ime/hammurabi.pdf) there were rules covering how people and merchants should interact.

There is also a large difference between a law being significantly burdensome to a business such that it will automatically fail versus a law that mandates a small thing for the common good of all. For example, every single thing you buy in the store to eat that has been processed in any way has a label telling you what is inside. This allows the State, without preference or prejudice, to indirectly protect the consumer by forcing the merchant to tell their customer exactly what is in the bottle they are buying. Does this cost the merchant some money? Of course it does. Yet, it is very insignificant and gives all of the POWER to the consumer. As merchants are aware of this fact they are encouraged to self-police against toxins and harmful chemicals.

This is very different from telling an employer how much you must pay an employee or what benefits you give. However, even there it is always an unequal balance of power between the employer and employee, so government rules mostly say that you cannot discriminate and if you fire someone it must be for cause - YES EVEN IN AN "AT WILL" State Federal laws apply. Go figure...

"Just because two or more people run a business corporately, does not make their private property a matter of public policy. Whatever gripes you have about corporate business law should be discussed on their own merits -- not used as an excuse to subvert private property. Do not let emotions cause you to abandon principles and sound reasoning." - Here you may be missing my point. I do not care at all how many people own the corporation. It could be one (1). By filing for corporate status the owners are asking of the State special protections, special treatment, special favors. They want all of the benefits of that corporation then cry like spoiled children when the State demands certain hoops be jumped through. Hypocrisy at its finest. This goes also for LLCs as well. I have much more respect for someone who goes in as a DBA and doesn't ask for special protection. For them I will give far more sympathy and tolerance to their arguments. They ARE a person!

"No free market -- or free anything -- exists under the presence of government mandated placards and/or armbands designed to brand people for their beliefs." - There has never been nor will there EVER be a totally free market, save possibly in The Walking Dead. There always has been and always will be rules that govern how businesses must operate. The problem is, and I do see this, that government rules not become so burdensome that business itself cannot succeed under the burden of said rules. If anyone thinks these are bad, ask HoughMade to give a three (3) hour presentation on all the laws already in existence that cover ordering something in another state, along with all other consumer protections! When I took my business law class we covered basic concepts that I have already forgotten that shocked me when the lawyer teaching them told us about them! You have WAY more protections under the law than most people are even aware of, and yet businesses thrive in our market.

There are those who decry, with some good reason, the lack of competitiveness with countries that do not have OSHA, or the EPA, or EEOC. Let us presume for a moment that all of the laws behind these were repealed and every governmental protection agency shut down. What we who live under these protections fail to see is the massive amount of needless death, injury, and injustice that took place as a matter of standard business practice. Imagine the worker who qualified for their pension at 30 years working at a company for 29 years, 358 days being late by 20 seconds and "Oh, you're late. You're fired!" No more pension for you buddy. Sucks to be you! Or the massive smog and health issues with factories belching out thousands of tons of pollutants every year without any limit. Easy to say "I wouldn't work there" when everywhere you went with jobs and industry had those problems. Also easy to say when you're never put behind the eight-ball yourself.

"I respectfully ask you examine your principles and explain how you can endorse all of this government force on a matter that is not even the government's business." - I humbly submit that the State always has an interest in how its citizens are treated by each other, whether it is one sticking a physical knife into another or one selling snake oil.

In the end I do actually (although it may not be believed reading me here) that there is far too much regulation on certain businesses. I wish we had half the laws along with much more severe penalties for breaking the remaining laws. With that in mind, the burden of the State telling every business "You MUST treat all consumers with equal respect and do business with them" is not really a burden on any business. That is not debatable from any point of logic. There were businesses in the south that did NOT want blacks sitting outside of their "place", yet when forced to change... nothing. The business stayed in business or failed, but not due to where black customers sat.

There are many rules and regulations that the State can put on a business that are burdensome and detrimental to profits, but I ask you, "What does it matter to a business if it knows its customer is gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, Muslim, Christian, Athiest, gun owner, tea party member, or it doesn't know and still serves the customer?" How does demanding that businesses treat their customers equally negatively impact the business?

Regards,

Doug

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So...basically no man is an island. From the days of tribes you have responsibilities to the group and the group has responsibilities to you.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Who is John Galt?

 

[rambone]

My proposal from another thread was pretty simple. No, you aren't required to make custom items for anyone. Yes, you are required to sell goods you do make to anyone who's willing to pay the asking price. If you'd make a "Dead Babies" banner for Bill's Church than you must make one for Tim's Church. If you wouldn't make one for anyone, you don't have to make one for Bill's Church or Tim's Church.

That seems a pretty decent compromise to me. Everyone has equal access to the economy (unless we no longer believe supply vs demand sets price and thus limiting supply reduces the buying power of those who have been excluded).

No one is forced to make things that go against their beliefs. A chocolate chip cookie is a chocolate chip cookie, regardless of who buys it...but you don't have to draw two crossed dongs on it if you don't want.

Your proposal is wholly based on forced association; forced contracts. Its not much of a compromise since property rights are completely ignored, as are individual rights to disassociate from others.

By your standard, if somebody publishes Jewish literature, he must also publish anti-Jewish literature. A book is a book.

If a person makes tee-shirts that say "Go Colts!" you'd force him to make shirts that say "Go Gay!" A shirt is a shirt.

If a person designs robes for nuns, you'd force him to make robes for the KKK. A robe is a robe.

 

[rambone]

"Just because two or more people run a business corporately, does not make their private property a matter of public policy. Whatever gripes you have about corporate business law should be discussed on their own merits -- not used as an excuse to subvert private property. Do not let emotions cause you to abandon principles and sound reasoning." - Here you may be missing my point. I do not care at all how many people own the corporation. It could be one (1). By filing for corporate status the owners are asking of the State special protections, special treatment, special favors. They want all of the benefits of that corporation then cry like spoiled children when the State demands certain hoops be jumped through. Hypocrisy at its finest. This goes also for LLCs as well. I have much more respect for someone who goes in as a DBA and doesn't ask for special protection. For them I will give far more sympathy and tolerance to their arguments. They ARE a person!

You may have a valid gripe about corporate business law. However, this discussion is not specific to corporations. This is a discussion of property rights that affects entrepreneurs of all varieties, including lemonade stands and "mom and pop" shops. Businesses of ALL kinds.

Let's keep the discussion relevant and save the hate for corporations for some other place.

"No free market -- or free anything -- exists under the presence of government mandated placards and/or armbands designed to brand people for their beliefs." - There has never been nor will there EVER be a totally free market, save possibly in The Walking Dead. There always has been and always will be rules that govern how businesses must operate.

...

"I respectfully ask you examine your principles and explain how you can endorse all of this government force on a matter that is not even the government's business." - I humbly submit that the State always has an interest in how its citizens are treated by each other, whether it is one sticking a physical knife into another or one selling snake oil.

There's a big difference between punishing fraud and enforcing political correctness. The government is straying far from victim prevention and into the arena of preventing hurt feelings. No rights are safe when the government takes an "interest" in such matters.

There are many rules and regulations that the State can put on a business that are burdensome and detrimental to profits, but I ask you, "What does it matter to a business if it knows its customer is gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, Muslim, Christian, Athiest, gun owner, tea party member, or it doesn't know and still serves the customer?" How does demanding that businesses treat their customers equally negatively impact the business?

This is an irrelevant question. Maybe getting forced into business deals noticeably affects the business, maybe it doesn't. That isn't the point. The people who run the business are having their rights and property violated.