A shield…

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #9063

    That is what this Indiana law centers on.

    Right now, this discussion is playing out on Quora, and it’s gone some unexpected places!

    One argument is “both sides deserve to be heard” and that’s all about refusing business because gay, and BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT WITH IMPUNITY.

    Some people see owning a business as some status or entitlement to judge others and they want that actualized in the law so they won’t suffer the consequences of their speech.

    Very interesting, and I didn’t realize that aspect of it earlier.

    In all of the high profile cases so far, the business could have been politely declined with no issue. But that wasn’t enough. They want to say it. “No, because gay.”

    Really, the First Amendment insures we get to speak, but it’s not a shield either.

    Edselehr and Vitalogy (I think, maybe just one of them) mentioned putting up signs.

    Compare “no gays” to “we serve everyone” and how that plays out in a community. It will be very ugly for the “no gays” business, and we all know that, and we know why.

    And that is why strong proponents of this law have no problem expressing their desire to discriminate. They want to do it openly with no consequences, “let the market sort it out” style.

    Not only is this an economic freedom argument, but it’s one where business trumps government and people, where owners have some status above and beyond the “commoners and poors” to do and say as they please.

    And that explains the other arguments I got. “If you were a real liberal, you would support this law.”

    Interesting! That’s exactly like the “you are a bigot for discriminating against bigots” argument seen here.

    I’ll share out the link, so it can be read without signing up: https://www.quora.com/If-discriminating-against-gays-wasnt-the-intent-of-the-Indiana-RFRA-what-was-the-intent?srid=uUDp&share=1

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.