Public vs Private

I am incensed over this Indiana thing, which it much the same as the hobby lobby thing.

Why do people not understand the difference in personal rights and life and public rights and life.

I may own a business and my religion tells me not talk to white people - that's my private right and I can do what I want in my day to day activities to not speak to whites. However, if I want to run a business, that relies on revenues from the public, I do not have the right to impose my 'religious beliefs' on either my employees or customers. I can choose not to have a public business - I can have a private buyers club or the like where there are only non-whites but I cannot solicit in public nor see 'trade' from the public.

It's simple - Private or Public. Private rights do not translate into Public ones. That's why we have anti-discriminatory laws.

You can be a private person and avoid any group you like - but not while doing business in public. The 'we reserve the right to refuse service' crap only holds if the 'behavior' of a customer is out-of-bounds, not a particular 'class' of people.

I know the supreme court knew the differnce and rule (at least 'that' portion did) in favor of hooby looby and I find that one of the most dispicable things they've done, bluring understanding that way, deliberatly for political reasons. Appalling.

Not everyone wants to be part of your 'Public', but we are forced to by you and your Government. I don't think you understand the individual liberty which SHOULD trump the rights of society. Human beings should have the basic right to own property to live on and make a living without the interference of the Government. For some reason people like you need to inflict your views on the rest of us. Maybe you could just back the heck off and do you and let the rest of us do us and leave us the hell alone.

This isn't from a religious perspective because I am not religious. This is from my perspective of back the hell off and leave people alone. No one knows if you are gay, straight or whatever unless YOU tell them. Just shut the heck up about your lifestyle, religion, politics etc and you won't be discriminated against. I don't want to know your baggage anyway.

My liberty trumps your society. Period.

a reply to: Metallicus

If individual rights trump public rights, you have no society.

And if you hate society so much, why do you seek attention here, in the society of ATS?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Metallicus

If individual rights trump public rights, you have no society.

And if you hate society so much, why do you seek attention here, in the society of ATS?

Self-defense.

2nd.

This is very similar to the federal bill passed in 1993 and signed by clinton. People are overreacting to a law they don't fully understand.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Metallicus

If individual rights trump public rights, you have no society.

And if you hate society so much, why do you seek attention here, in the society of ATS?

Metallicus quite elegantly nailed it! Since when does "tolerance" become such a politically used word that it is opposite of its true meaning?

Metallicus used the term "Liberty", and I think it was the most appropriate word to use in showing the hypocrisy of those who seem to be screaming the loudest about not being tolerated?

It seems that you hate society because you are refusing to bend and accept the freedom and liberty of others?

Also, not for nothing? But if you believe in "Public Rights" then you give all of your authority over to the government. Maybe for now, your government favors your opinions, but that might not always be the case.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

The purpose of the Act, that passed in 1993, was to override a Supreme Court's decision.

The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
en.wikipedia.org...

Congress didn't agree with their interpretation of the 1st Amendment, and instead of introducing a Constitutional Amendment, they took a short sighted quick fix for an easy way around the decision.

It's never easy to erase the 1st Amendment.

Even voicing differences in opinion is equally protected under the law.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
This is very similar to the federal bill passed in 1993 and signed by clinton. People are overreacting to a law they don't fully understand.

It is not at all like the federal bill. Nor was it written for the same reasons. You are the one who doesn't understand the law. Pence is counting on people like you. If it was like the federal law, you wouldn't be seeing the backlash you're seeing.

To understand the difference, see the link in my signature.

Its just people hiding behind religion to protect there bigotry towards people different than they are, there opening pandoras box and the day there kind gets discriminated againts they wîll cry foul.

Yet in response to the outcry over the law, Indiana lawmakers on Monday pledged to alter it so it could not be used to discriminate against gays.

Apparently they are will to ammend the law.

www.washingtonpost.com... story.html?hpid=z1

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Its just people hiding behind religion to protect there bigotry towards people different than they are, there opening pandoras box and the day there kind gets discriminated againts they wîll cry foul.

No different than the bigotry of others who hate those who are different than they are in beliefs and lifestyle choices?

We are all being used and pitted against each other, but I guess the next election will make it all better? /end sarcasm

It's up to "We the People" to change our thought process due to years of conditioning! I don't care what God you believe in or disbelieve in or what particular gender you prefer to bed down with, in the long run, we will ALL LOSE for buying into this corrupt game of social conditioning!

a reply to: seeker1963


Yep! Our black president has done wonders for race relations.....lol

a reply to: Metallicus

I think individual rights "trumping" societal rights is kind of absurd.

Without "society" there is just anarchy and "rights" are only the spoils awarded to the victor in any given power struggle.

Is that what you really want?

Society demands an agreed upon lowest common denominator. A "civilized" society demands social equity in pursuit of that common denominator but without a perpetual power struggle.

a reply to: Metallicus

Human beings should have the basic right to own property to live on and make a living without the interference of the Government.

But we are talking a business here. Unless your home is your business I don't see how it equates.

I completely agree that what happens in your home is your business, well to an extent with kids involved.

I don't feel that people should have the 'right' to discriminate on the basis of individual freedom.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
I am incensed over this Indiana thing, which it much the same as the hobby lobby thing.

Why do people not understand the difference in personal rights and life and public rights and life.

I may own a business and my religion tells me not talk to white people - that's my private right and I can do what I want in my day to day activities to not speak to whites. However, if I want to run a business, that relies on revenues from the public, I do not have the right to impose my 'religious beliefs' on either my employees or customers. I can choose not to have a public business - I can have a private buyers club or the like where there are only non-whites but I cannot solicit in public nor see 'trade' from the public.

It's simple - Private or Public. Private rights do not translate into Public ones. That's why we have anti-discriminatory laws.

You can be a private person and avoid any group you like - but not while doing business in public. The 'we reserve the right to refuse service' crap only holds if the 'behavior' of a customer is out-of-bounds, not a particular 'class' of people.

I know the supreme court knew the differnce and rule (at least 'that' portion did) in favor of hooby looby and I find that one of the most dispicable things they've done, bluring understanding that way, deliberatly for political reasons. Appalling.

You know they don't actually teach American law in most public schools, right? I agree with you completely, but this is why people are responding the way they are. Because they probably don't know how this stuff came about or what the legal justifications come from.

What you're saying is found in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (think about the year for a second):

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

And here's a link to the Justice Department

This is the law that single-handedly had the biggest impact on ending Segregation in America. In fact, most would say this Act ended Segregation, though many states fought against its implementation. Not only are the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the largest achievements of the Civil Rights Movement, but I wouldn't be able to have these conversations today if it weren't for this Act. The fact that many people in this very thread are lambasting it should tell you everything you need to know. Though I prefer to assume they just didn't know this.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Its just people hiding behind religion to protect there bigotry towards people different than they are, there opening pandoras box and the day there kind gets discriminated againts they wîll cry foul.

No different than the bigotry of others who hate those who are different than they are in beliefs and lifestyle choices?

We are all being used and pitted against each other, but I guess the next election will make it all better? /end sarcasm

It's up to "We the People" to change our thought process due to years of conditioning! I don't care what God you believe in or disbelieve in or what particular gender you prefer to bed down with, in the long run, we will ALL LOSE for buying into this corrupt game of social conditioning!

Applause for that response

There are enough laws on the books now, too many, to ensure social tolerance.

Continued legislation controlling societal tolerance instead of compassionately educating society on tolerance assures loss of liberty for all.

Many here would gladly trade liberty for legislated equality, instead of putting forth REAL effort being tolerant and compassionately educating.

In this self centered, entitled world, people would rather force their way of life on others instead of being tolerant of others and maybe with a little compassion understanding each other and accepting the differences.

It's the same thing they've done with the smoking bans.

The rights should be in the hands of the business owner to decide. Not mandated regulations.
I would never even consider opening a business in the U.S. today. It wouldn't belong to me.

a reply to: Metallicus

Here's the problem : if I walk into a business and the owner thinks my bright shirt is 'flamboyant", regardless of whether or not I'm actually gay, he can, in Indiana, refuse service because his perception of me is as a 'sinner". Like wise if a man has on a yarmulke, or is wearing turban, or looks different enough from himself . Indiana does not get to decide who sits at the lunch counter. If your liberty infringes on the rights of others it ceases to be freedom. Plain and simple. That's why this vile "Christian" law must be struck down. It opens the door for only one segment of the populace to truly be free.

Drives me nuts this whole thing makes me berserk

I am all about free speech/thought and all that good stuff

If you want to be in your house, on a sidewalk, hell n a street protesting away...non-violently...awesome. I may hate your speech, but if you aren't inciting violence I will back you up 100%

But in a business I think is absolute BS. Where is the line? So what if I hate Christians? (I don't by the way) but what if I do? Are you all ok f I see a cross on your neck and tell you get out?

Why not go further? I am in the LGBT crowd. I don't want any heterosexuals in my lobby.

Keep going? How about nobody who is a different race than I?

It's all BS.

If I run my little cake stand, and you want a cake, the only color I care about is green....as in money...or blue, red or whatever color your credit card is