I was going to post about the Arkansas issue and Wal Mart taking a stance against it yesterday, but the computer I was using was shit and I gave up. Totally forgot by the time I got home.

Personally I think the issue is rather more complex than it is being portrayed. What about a store that refuses service to a customer that's located in a mall that won't tolerate such behaviour? Or vice versa?

The whole thing is really stupid anyway. Put a damn sign in plain view that plainly states you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and you're set legally, right? Beyond?

                       Refusing service to a gay person violates every law of equality I've ever heard of, based on your religion just makes it religious bigotry; so you don't invite them to your home or to your church but opperating a buisness or service in the public domain puts you under all  equal access laws has guerunteed by various SCOTUS decissions. btw, here in Ontario and probably most states, for any food related buisness you can refuse entry and service to (uncontrolled) long hairs and persons unbathed (unsanitary) also if they're sneezing and caughing these are of course Health regulations not equality issues.

                        That paragraph that starts "where in the bible does it say.......". ALL OVER both OT and NT.  Start with JC throwing out legal money lenders from the temple based on his religion, St.Paul and other writers preaching to convert or avoid the unbelievers. Jesus telling all to "leave your familys to follow me, if they do not think has you" or " I do not come in peace but with a sword to raise havoc and cause discourse, to set fathers against sons.......etc.".  In the OT they justified acts of gencide againsts entire nations for being different then Gods chosen people, talk about denial of services.

as much as discrimination makes me sick, i see no reason why the government has the right to force a private business to serve anyone.

The basic idea of religious freedoms was to let you have that religion but not to force it on others. By refusing to serve a gay person and saying that "you are gay and it is against my religion" is not what our laws say you can function. Basically the way I view it is that the person what is next? A private ambulance service refusing to take a gay person to the hospital because the fucking CEO of the service says "we don't service gays because it is against my religion" then you have an issue of a gay person dying when they could have been wisked off to the hospital and lived.

This goes much deeper than serving pizza to a gay wedding.

I agree it violates every law of equality. I agree about the laws for sanitary conditions but the long hair is a little far fetched unless they work for you or are delibrately throwing hair on the food.

All your examples are being taken out of context. Neither God or Jesus said delibrately "don't serve gays". Hell if God wanted you to kill off gays or reject them in your pizza parlor he would have put it in the ten commandments.

Concerning the Arkansas law

Interestingly, Christians could discriminate against gay people if Ballinger's bill passed but atheists could not, highlighting the same tensions between the First Amendment's establishment clause and its exercise clause that pop up with regard to peyote. I imagine that if Ballinger's bill became law, someone would try to use it to claim the right of conscience to take drugs for religious purposes. 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/25/david-burnett-flips-letting-anti-gay-and-ten-commandments-bills-out-of-committee

When you open a public business it is to serve the public. If they wanted it to be private then they should have done a membership only.

Every business serves "the public." Unless it's a state-owned service, I see no reason why they should be forced to serve anyone.

There is a private members only type of business. Gyms are like that

  President Clinton ( and sponsored by ultra left wing Chuck Schumer-D ) signed on to a federal version of the this religious protection law.   Why isn't any one dragging them through this shit ? Why isn't Hillary denouncing her husband for having already opened the door for this law ?

  Also the gay CEO of Apple is horrified by the Religious Freedom law that might be passed in Indiana but Apple has more stores in Tehran, Iran than in all of Indiana.   You know Iran, where gays are executued ?  Why is he doing business with a country whose religious bigotry  makes Indiana look positively amateurish ?

  If I'm wrong about my information I'll admit it.

                                      Apple products for all the gay hating Muslims in Tehran:    www.appletehran.com

   Apple apparently does like to discriminate here in the US.    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/20/503000/apple-store-refuses-to-sell-popular-devices-to-iranian-americans/

The US constitution does not cover business practices, only government organisations.

Hospitals and ambulances are covered by the constitution. That isn't likely to happen unless EXC gets his way.

Those aren't private. All you need to do is be a customer and you get access. Anyone with the cash for a membership qualifies as a customer. I guarantee that most gyms won't tell a potential customer to screw off if they want to look over the premises.

Private means by invitation only, like a country club.

You are wrong in a sense. 

The original law was applied differently. Now right winged christians are wanting similar state laws applied differently so that it hurts gays and benefits christians. The law in Indiana is not exactly the same as the federal law; it has been modified in specific areas.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/mar/29/fact-checking-march-29-news-shows/ http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ee8b2d9fc11c462eaa204dbee5e7253d/religious-freedom-laws-not-used-against-gays-past

The fact that you want to compare Iran to Indiana is just plain ridiculous and a fallacy. I suggest you stop copying Rush Limbaugh who is a walking cluster fuck of a fallacy himself.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/obvious-similarity-between-iran-indiana-news.html

I'm not talking about LA Fitness. I've been a member of a private gym and racquet club. Totally private and definitely for rich people. I got in because I knew someone who was already a member.

As for EMT's and Doctors rejecting gays

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-would-let-michigan-doctors-emts-refuse-to-treat-gay-patients/

I never mentioned the US Constitution. It isn't part of my argument that this state law (or state laws) is being applied to hurt people who are of different sexual orientation.

I guarantee the first EMT who refuses to treat a patient will be fired and sued into bankruptcy, no matter what state passes what law. He or she will probably also have to go into hiding over death threats.

Private institutions like the gym you mention already can, and do, discriminate. This law won't change anything in that regard.

Legally, no. If you put up a sign saying you will refuse service to blacks, you are violating several federal sand probably a few state and local laws. Discriminating against gays is less clear, but I wouldn't call it a slam dunk legal case.

However, I personally agree with iwbiek, nobody should be forced to serve anyone. One step further, I want bigots to advertise themselves. PLEASE put up a sign saying 'we don't serve none of them coons or fags' Because then I won't accidently give any of my money to your ignorant biggoted ass. Outlawing discrimination might make it less visible, but it doesn't make it disappear. Be open and honest, then I can avoid wasting my money on them. 

I think you misunderstood my hypothetical. I didn't intend to suggest a sign that specifically discriminates against an easily identified portion of the population. I meant a sign that literally says "We reserve the right to refuse service to any customer at our discretion" or something similar.
Such signs are quite obviously posted at the entrances to every mall I've ever been in here. They are generally to allow malls to kick out teenagers who hang around too long, but the wording is vague enough that if the administration of a mall were so inclined, they could use it to discriminate.
It wouldn't last long, a few calls to the parent corporation would see a swift change in management, but for smaller stores it would be more difficult to prove discriminatory behaviour; and not all smaller stores operate under the umbrella of a parent corporation.

    I listen to news outlets and pundits who carry water for both political parties and then draw my own conclusions.  Don't be so dismissive.    If Apple is selling products in Iran ( I provided the Apple link to their store in Iran ) then the only conclusion is that they don't mind doing business with a country that discriminates against gays in a way that even the most virulent gay hating bigot would never be allowed to do in the  US.  If Apple sells in Iran ( and they apparently do ) then it is a valid point that the gay CEO of Apple is utterly two-faced concerning his "outrage".

   If you have a link that proves Apple doesn't do business in Iran that would support your view.   ( Again, I already gave you a link to the Tehran Apple store )

   I'll read your politifact link later about the details of the federal bill later.   I have to go towork.

Apple doing business in Iran has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It is a strawman fallacy.

( F )   In no way is monitoring Tim Cook's business ethics a straw man fallacy.  If he does business with any gay-hating regime then it will be obvious that his concern for the welfare of gays ( or ethnic Chinese ) depends entirely upon what time zone they live in. ( The previous, lengthy post that point "F" was quoted from has dissappeared... )

  EDIT: I have discovered another of Apple / Tim Cook's shady business contracts currently in effect in the Middle East that proves Apple will knowingly set up shop in an very rich Muslim country that has a long history of abusing homosexuals.   I will hold off posting to give you time to reply to my previous post if you choose to.

What specific problem is this meant to solve ?

   Perhaps, but Apple choosing to do business in Saudi Arabia has total relevancy regarding Tim Cook and the conflict of gay rights vs business ethics.  

  I already pointed out in my previous post ( that went missing ) that Apple, and therefore Tim Cook, already have a spotty record with human rights abuses regarding it's workers in China.     Even after these issues were brought up, Apple apparently took a lackadasical approach and allowed the horrid working conditions to persist.   Some Chinese worker even resorted to commiting suicide to escape the crushing workload and miserable living conditions in the worker dormitories. 

   www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep//05/workers-rights-flouted-apple-iphone-plant

   www.independent.co.uk./news/world/asia/apple-admits-it-has-a-human-rights-problem-6898617.html

 I previously pointed out that Cook, who stated "America's business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination in all it's forms is bad for business. At Apple we, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers' lives. We strive to do business in a way that is JUST AND FAIR.  That's why, on behalf of Apple, I'm standing to oppose this new wave of legislation-WHEREVER IT EMERGES.

Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY COME FROM. what they LOOK LIKE, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law allow in INDIANA or ARKANSAS ......WE WILL NEVER TOLERATE DISCRIMINATION."

 My previous post contained a link from the Jerusalem Post stating that Apple appeared to be scouting Iran as a possible business client now that trade sanctions against Iran seem to be on the way out. The article did maintain that at this point that had not been confirmed.

 I stated that it would be the pretty fucking ballsy for Tim Cook to go do business with a country like Iran that has a known record of extremely violent repression ( up to hanging ) of gays based upon their Islamic morality after denouncing Indiana for discriminating against gays who might not receive a wedding cake.  There is no false equivalency on my part.

  Well since my last post went bye bye I have discovered this eye opening piece of info concerning Apple:  www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-retailer-announces-opening-of-first-apple-stores-575777.html.    Apple does business in Saudi Arabia.    Straw manning ?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

 The first line from the wiki article states "The rights of LGBT people in Saudi Arabia are unrecognized.  Homosexuality is frequently a taboo subject in Saudi Arabian society and is punished with imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment, capital punishment, whipping/flogging and chemical castrations.  Transgenderism is generally associated with homosexuality."

      There is no way in hell that Tim Cook is unaware of this.    Thanks to Apple, the average Saudi can now use their I-Phones ( made in China ) to record the public beatings and executions of gays.

    I'm not straw manning Tim Cook.    I'm pointing out his gargantuan hipocrisy by his pretending to take the moral high ground and at the same time selectively choosing which group of religious bigots he is willing to make deals with.   With Tim Cook in charge, Apple's corporate policy is  ...do as I say, not as I do.

      Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard calls out Tim Cook's hypocrisy in Wall Street Journal:  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/03/carly-fiorina-tim-cook-opposition-to-indiana-religious-freedom-law-hypocritical/

     From the article:  "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia" she said Thursday afternoon during an interview with Wall Street Journal reporters and editors.  "But I don't hear him being upset about that."

The important thing here is that the law itself is hypocritical. Anyone opposing it being a hypocrite themselves isn't going to change that in the least. Iit just gives it's defenders something else, besides the obvious, to focus on.

    I like focusing on an ultra rich, white, gay CEO who publicly whines about gay discrimination in the US but has no problem throwing Saudi gays under the bus if it means making a profit.   Using Tim Cook as a spokesman for gay rights makes about as much sense as using Lee Harvey Oswald as a spokesman for responsible gun ownership.

There are plenty of behind the scenes going on here. We have no idea if there were agreements made before Cook became the boss. We have no idea if he can stop selling them there. Where is the fine print? We just do not know.

The original discussion is about Indiana and how it was pointed out Cook bitched about the law. Then people like Rush pointed out that there were most stores in Iran than Indiana. WTF does that have any thing to do with things? Apple sells their products in almost every country in the world. I'm betting 99% of the world. How many states which have similar laws to Indiana's new law has Apple products being sold within their borders? Who the fuck cares? Business is business and if they stopped selling Apples in one state because of a law like this then it would hurt business because they would have to stop selling them in 12-18 states. Are they going to do that? No. Cook will find other ways to work his opinion in to the public eye and behind the scenes with political donations.

As for Iran. It's a whole other ball game. Cook's opinion wouldn't do shit there and neither would pulling the sales of the Apple products. The empty space would be filled with blackmarket people, cheap Chinese knock offs.

  Whatever happened before Cook took over as Apple CEO is certainly relevant ...up to a point.  But he's the Big Cahuna now.  Lead by example or shut the fuck up.

 [quote =digitalbeachbum] We have no idea if he can stop selling them there. Where is the fine print? We just do not know.