Online poll: Do you support the Indiana bill allowing business owners to reject LGBT customers?

Fox 59 ^ | 3/31/2015 | Fox 59

[Colonel_Flagg]

Of course, the law does no such thing, so the question is faulty.

[Grams A]

You have to answer about 600 questions before you will ever get to the one about Indiana. Most people won’t bother.

[afsnco]

Morality ain’t determined by majority vote. God has already condemned and damned unrepentant homosexuals to hell and the lake of fire, where He’ll mercilessly torture them for all eternity. And those who “bandwagon” in favor of that disgusting behavior are just as damned.

[Zhang Fei]

Thanks. I guess it would prevent someone from asking a Jewish deli to provide ham sandwiches at his gay wedding.

[WashingtonSource]

The question is asked in a way to distort the response. Should ask. Should Christian business owners be forced to violate their conscience and endorse immoral behavior?

[sickoflibs]

RE:”Thanks. I guess it would prevent someone from asking a Jewish deli to provide ham sandwiches at his gay wedding.”

Well if the Jewish deli doesn't serve ham sandwiches to anyone then they don't have to serve them to gays under anti-discrimination laws.

Now the gay wedding part could get them into trouble under these laws

Indiana should have passed a law that specifically applies to objection to ceremonies,then the debate would have been much clearer.

[Steve Van Doorn]

This is a widget from this company:
http://civicscience.com/

They don't allow access to other peoples widgets.

[JimRed]

I want to see a clan rally hire a black family to cater their gathering.

Our Clan wouldn't think twice about it, if they were the best available at the preferred price. That other Klan, on the other hand...

[supercat]

IMHO, the big reason that "gay marriage" proponents have been as successful as they have been is that they have baited many conservatives into treating marriage as a "religious issue", thus allowing leftists to paint those who don't acknowledge it as "foisting their religion on others". The proper rebuttal would be to suggest that any two (or more) individuals who want to consider themselves "married" are free to do so, but that does obligate anyone else to recognize them as such. It is common for people, including business owners, to voluntarily extend certain benefits and privileges to some people that they do not wish to extend to others. In a free country, such behavior is their right as individuals.

To declare by fiat that X is required to provide a service to Y which X has not voluntarily agreed to provide and does not wish to, is to make X a slave of either Y or the entity that is mandating such service. The issue isn't merely one of religion. It's about whether people should be compelled to serve others against their will.

[ifinnegan]

I am in agreement with the direction of your argument.

Endless talk about minutiae related to homosexuality is pointless and a losing proposition.