• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Doctors' faith must yield to gays' rights, court says - latimes





Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group | Lambda Legal



Don't you "practice" in California? You probably "practice" in Baja California because the issue of sexual orientation as it concerned abortificients was settled in California 7 years ago. Unless of course you believe this ruling means that doctors can still discriminate against straights, which is laughably absurd, doctor.

Yes I do, and I never said they could not discriminate because of sexual orientation.
 
Yes I do, and I never said they could not discriminate because of sexual orientation.

They can't discriminate because of sexual orientation. This was already settled in California, where you supposedly "practice". That you're still asking how "lefties" would handle such an issue while living in California - probably the most liberal state in the contiguous United States - makes you seem a little bit behind on the times if not completely uninformed, doctor. ;)
 
They can't discriminate because of sexual orientation. This was already settled in California, where you supposedly "practice". That you're still asking how "lefties" would handle such an issue while living in California - probably the most liberal state in the contiguous United States - makes you seem a little bit behind on the times if not completely uninformed, doctor. ;)

Once again, I never said the could discriminate because of sexual orientation. And I asked nothing about California, but you'd need to read to know that. And Im not an MD, and never made that claim. I will have my doctorate next month though.
 
Once again, I never said the could discriminate because of sexual orientation. And I asked nothing about California,

That's right, you asked a question concerning how "lefties" would deal with such an issue. I provided the answer from the liberal state where you supposedly work. Why you, in your infinite knowledge of all things related to medicine, did not know how leftists would handle such an issue already settled in the leftist state that you live in speaks volumes. Then again, it's not like such a ruling and law would affect your profession, right? ;)

but you'd need to read to know that. And Im not an MD, and never made that claim. I will have my doctorate next month though.

That would make you a doctor, doctor.
 
That's right, you asked a question concerning how "lefties" would deal with such an issue. I provided the answer from the liberal state where you supposedly work. Why you, in your infinite knowledge of all things related to medicine, did not know how leftists would handle such an issue already settled in the leftist state that you live in speaks volumes. Then again, it's not like such a ruling and law would affect your profession, right? ;)



That would make you a doctor, doctor.

Its almost like the context of my discussion, with numerous posters was state law. In fact, this entire threads context is state law-as thats where gay laws lie.

I'd kindly request that you read before stumbling in and posting blindly-it enriches the forum.

And yes it would make me a doctor, but not a medical doctor. Ive been called doc since I was 18, and more often, since I was 20.

These are examples of context.
 
Its almost like the context of my discussion, with numerous posters was state law. In fact, this entire threads context is state law-as thats where gay laws lie. I'd kindly request that you read before stumbling in and posting blindly-it enriches the forum.

Yes, I provided what lefties have already done in regards to the hypothetical you proposed in terms of state law and court rulings. You seemed to be completely oblivious to what leftists would do in such a case even if the answer that the poster provided is in tune and exactly aligned with what leftists in California have already done. Seems kind of odd for a guy for who claims to practice medicine in Chaz Bono-Cenk Uygur-Sean Penn-Black Panther Party-Lefty for over 50 years-California... but that's none of my business, doctor.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I provided what lefties have already done in regards to the hypothetical you proposed in terms of state law and court rulings. You seemed to be completely oblivious to what leftists would do in such a case even if the answer that the poster provided is exactly what leftists in California have already done. Seems kind of odd for a guy for who claims to practice medicine in Chaz Bono-Cenk Uygur-Sean Penn-Black Panther Party-Lefty for over 50 years-California... but that's none of my business, doctor.

Lolz, I wish I knew what state this threads discussion was about. Can you think of a state?

Ive never been to Indiana, but I can read.

Why do you think, as enthused with my state as I may be-that Im keeping it in a state context? Its almost like one would have to read the constitution.
 
Lolz, I wish I knew what state this threads discussion was about. Can you think of a state?

Your question and hypothetical said nothing or had anything to do with a specific state. It had everything to do with what lefties would do in the hypothetical you proposed. I posted the answer, which was perfectly in line with what has already been done by a leftist government and what rogue proposed. You seemed to be oblivious to what has already been done in California - which is - you know, leftist. Seems a bit odd. :)
 
Your question and hypothetical said nothing or had anything to do with a specific state. It had everything to do with what lefties would do in the hypothetical you proposed. I posted the answer, which was perfectly in line with what has already been done by a leftist government and what rogue proposed. You seemed to be oblivious to what has already been done in California - which is - you know, leftist. Seems a bit odd. :)

Why can't you define the logic of our sex laws? Let me be your chaperon.

You can't answer for lefties nationally, come off it even if you wanted to it would be materially impossible. Not even king Obama can save you.

I will always know the pertinent sex laws in the state of minerva, or athena, or seshat...cause I know the sex laws in the trenches, from the trenches. Get back to me one of these days.
 
Why can't you define the logic of our sex laws? Let me be your chaperon.

You can't answer for lefties nationally, come off it even if you wanted to it would be materially impossible. Not even king Obama can save you.

I will always know the pertinent sex laws in the state of minerva, or athena, or isis...cause I know the sex laws in the trenches Get back to me one of these days.

You keep dancing around the discussion and your obvious lack of knowledge, however, it doesn't change anything. You asked what leftists would do, I provided an answer based on the very state you claim to practice and live in (not to mention, the most liberal state in the contiguous United States) as well as the answer given by the poster.

It seems such issues are settled in other liberal strongholds like New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Illinois, and Connecticut. The answer is the same as that of California. Surprise. So the answer rogue gave covers the nation as far as liberals and liberal governments go. However, since you didn't know what a leftist place like that of California did on the issue, nobody can't expect you to know what liberals in other states are doing.

Now, if you want to rant about Obama having a different opinion on gay marriage 3 years ago, and not supporting it 8 years ago, knock yourself out. However, it would serve you well to catch up on the ideas, laws and court cases put at work in leftist strongholds like California. Who knows? You may avoid asking silly questions and it may be relevant to your supposed field of work, doctor.

;)
 
Last edited:
You keep dancing around the discussion and your obvious lack of knowledge, however, it doesn't change anything. You asked what leftists would do, I provided an answer based on the very state you claim to practice and live in (not to mention, the most liberal state in the contiguous United States) as well as the answer given by the poster.

It seems such issues are settled in other liberal strongholds like New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Illinois, and Connecticut. The answer is the same as that of California. Surprise. So the answer rogue gave covers the nation as far as liberals and liberal governments go. However, since you didn't know what a leftist place like that of California did on the issue, nobody can't expect you to know what liberals in other states are doing.

Now, if you want to rant about Obama having a different opinion on gay marriage 3 years ago, and not supporting it 8 years ago, knock yourself out. However, it would serve you well to catch up on the ideas, laws and court cases put at work in leftist strongholds like California. Who knows? You may avoid asking silly questions and it may be relevant to your supposed field of work, doctor.

;)

lolz, I was clearly asking a lefty out of my state. The left seeks a consolidation of power (statism). That would preclude, but not exclude lefties
elsewhere. As the always the left appears on the same page, my q is apt.
 
Which state would that be? Which case exactly?

We discussed it a while back. You thought the discrimination against the conscientious objector fins and I thought the gay movement position bigotry and a vile shift in the meaning of the Constitution.
 
lolz, I was clearly asking a lefty out of my state.

You spent time arguing that your question (as part of a larger discussion) was about Indiana. Now that I've pointed out that your question said nothing about a specific state, you've moved on to saying it's about a state other than California. Well, alright. I won't bother asking you "Which is it?" because you don't seem to know. More importantly, your question - once again - said nothing about what states were excluded or included. En tout cas, The pattern remains the same in other states with sizeable liberal populations:

Illinois | Lambda Legal
Maine | Lambda Legal
Vermont | Lambda Legal
New York | Lambda Legal
Massachusetts | Lambda Legal
Oregon | Lambda Legal
Washington | Lambda Legal
Hawaii | Lambda Legal
Rhode Island | Lambda Legal
Delaware | Lambda Legal
New Jersey | Lambda Legal
Iowa | Lambda Legal (I included this one because it's voted Democratic in 6 out of the last 7 fed. elections; however, it's not essential to my case)
Maryland | Lambda Legal
Minnesota | Lambda Legal
Colorado | Lambda Legal

Remember, you asked how liberals would deal with your hypothetical. Not how liberals in Indiana, or anywhere except California would deal with your hypothetical. I answered accordingly. However, those links only cover workplace discrimination. This one covers non-discrimination laws as they relate to public accomodations:

https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

Every single once I've mentioned is included. My answer remains true in 14 other examples of liberal states where people can't be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Is there any liberal state you'd like to specifically touch on? Texas, maybe? :lol:

The left seeks a consolidation of power (statism). That would preclude, but not exclude lefties
elsewhere. As the always appears on the same page, my q is apt.

Is this the part where you rant about the left because I ignored your rant on Obama? Oh okay, cool. :cool: It doesn't change the fact that you asked a question that would be easily answered if you knew a bit about laws, views, and cases concerning discrimination in the most liberal state in the contiguous union. Pointing out that it's the same pattern in other liberal states? Now you just look uninformed about what goes on in other states as well as California. However, it's fun to watch you do the shuffle.
 
Last edited:
You spent time arguing that your question (as part of a larger discussion) was about Indiana. Now that I've pointed out that your question said nothing about a specific state, you've moved on to saying it's about a state other than California. Well, alright. I won't bother asking you "Which is it?" because you don't seem to know. More importantly, your question - once again - said nothing about what states were excluded or included. En tout cas, The pattern remains the same in other states with sizeable liberal populations:

Illinois | Lambda Legal
Maine | Lambda Legal
Vermont | Lambda Legal
New York | Lambda Legal
Massachusetts | Lambda Legal
Oregon | Lambda Legal
Washington | Lambda Legal
Hawaii | Lambda Legal
Rhode Island | Lambda Legal
Delaware | Lambda Legal
New Jersey | Lambda Legal
Iowa | Lambda Legal (I included this one because it's voted Democratic in 6 out of the last 7 fed. elections; however, it's not essential to my case)
Maryland | Lambda Legal
Minnesota | Lambda Legal
Colorado | Lambda Legal

Remember, you asked how liberals would deal with your hypothetical. Not how liberals in Indiana, or anywhere except California would deal with your hypothetical. I answered accordingly. However, those links only cover workplace discrimination. This one covers non-discrimination laws as they relate to public accomodations:

https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

Every single once I've mentioned is included. My answer remains true in 14 other examples of liberal states where people can't be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Is there any liberal state you'd like to specifically touch on? Texas, maybe? :lol:



Is this the part where you rant about the left because I ignored your rant on Obama? Oh okay, cool. :cool: It doesn't change the fact that you asked a question that would be easily answered if you knew a bit about laws, views, and cases concerning discrimination in the most liberal state in the contiguous union. Pointing out that it's the same pattern in other liberal states? Now you just look uninformed about what goes on in other states as well as California. However, it's fun to watch you do the shuffle.



that was the sound of the mic dropping.
 
I meant the actor who plays Sheldon, Jim Parsons is gay. Hopefully that clarifies things.
The actor? They did a movie of the Foundation Trilogy? Wow! Who plays the Mule? What's the name of the series/movie?


Seldon = Character in Asimov's Foundation series.

Sheldon = Character in Big Ban Theory whose real life actor is gay.


>>>>
 
"oh, wait a minute. If I move my business to Indiana, my 10 gay employees are going to face State Sanctioned discrimination. Realtors can legally refuse to sell them a house, Apartment owners can refuse to lease to them, restaurants can legally refuse to serve them food. In fact, because I harbor these "gays" my business can legally be discriminated against. Suppliers in Indiana can legally choose to not sell to me. "

....

NONE of this logic works as this is NOT the priority of companies.

IN FACT, companies flocked to the South when discrimination against blacks were rampant and essentially legal - and nearly all those companies had black employees. Normal companies are not focused on whether their employees can find a good restaurant or are treated fairly in society. That's not what companies are about.
Wow. Just wow. You must have worked for some pretty crappy companies.
 
17406848-mmmain.jpg
 
Yeah, barely mentioned. It's a long book, and you've cited a handful of passages. But OK, we're not going to change each others' mind on the matter.

I'll just add that I don't "support" homosexuality. I accept it as a given, something that makes a person who he or she IS, who they love. I don't judge them for who they love any more than I judge you or anyone else. It's just part of who they are.

One more edit - it can be boiled down to this, really - I made no choice, and did nothing good or bad by BEING a heterosexual. It's just part of who I AM. Similarly, gays had no choice in who they ARE, and that preference about who they love is, identically, neither good nor bad. It's no more good or bad than their brown hair or blue eyes or height of 5'9". To believe otherwise would be to damn them for something they had no part in choosing - same as damning them for being black or short or with big ears. The only other alternative is to expect gays to live a life alone, without intimacy. I can't wish that on anyone because I know how special my relationship with my wife is, and how much that intimate relationship adds to my life. It would be cruel to DEMAND that others with a different orientation live a live alone.

Acceptance is support. [and it's exactly what they 'claim' to want] But you're right, most are too emotionally involved with the subject to ever change their minds.
 
wierd... normal people live in Indiana.. whodathunkit? ;)

that's kinda my point here... this **** is getting blown waaay out of proportion... it's pretty ridiculous.

"There an election coming!" They need something to rally around.... positive or not.
 
I know I would prefer hell to a heaven that expects people to bow to insane rules. The company would be much better in hell anyway, if that is really how it works (which I highly doubt). Sounds like you're pretty sure you won't be there, so at least there's that.

I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. He died on the cross for our sins, so that we might be forgiven when we trust in what Christ has done there. When we, by faith, receive the sacrifice He offered, we can then have eternal life and escape the righteous judgment of God the Father.

You can justify not following the 'rules' any way you want but in the end....
 
Acceptance is support. [and it's exactly what they 'claim' to want] But you're right, most are too emotionally involved with the subject to ever change their minds.

Mornin WCH. :2wave: Yeah but in all their little touchy emotional rescue and their push to help the LGBT Crowd Be more special than all others.

The left did manage to now say and show, that Businesses and Corporations are people.....they have been cheering on Angie and Apple who are speaking out. Imagine that Corporations and business speaking out. After all that hoopla about Corporations and Businesses aren't people. :lamo

Did you notice Apple jumped Right in.....taking the bait hook line and sinker.

Now their lame type asses can explain what they are doing in China and the ME conducting business. Especially with those who have no trouble showing Gays they are special. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I practice, there is no such law, and if there is a view that they are poor candidates for treatment or procedures, based on factors like history, they can absolutely have services withheld.

Being simply "an opposite sex couple" vice "a same sex couple", or "heterosexual" rather than "homosexual", is not a factor. If you are referring to other things, such as their personal health history, then you are the one miscontruing things. If you are basing treatment, including giving abortion or birth control drugs to a patient based on either their relative genders or their sexuality, that is illegal. It must be based on other factors to withhold treatment to a patient, any treatment, besides "well they're homosexual/heterosexual" or "they're a same sex couple/opposite sex couple".
 
are there any business that are actually discriminating against gays in Indiana.. or fighting for the right to?

are there any who discriminate and are planning to move to Indiana?

I think people in haste to argue that this law is going to make the gay sky fall forgot to check if there is actually a problem afoot.
personally, I'd wager about 99.99999999999999999% of Indianans would act correct, regardless of this law....I can't fathom that whole state being chock full of anti-gay bigots just chomping at the bit waiting for a "permit" to discriminate.

Almost certainly there are at least a few businesses in Indiana that would like to deny same sex couples/homosexuals their services, the ability to buy something, even if it is something specific, from them. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been people supporting it for that very reason, such as those three men already identified.
 
Good news!
yes.gif


Arkansas has seen how the left and the LameStream has played with this issue and now their Senate just passed an RFRA. Which their Governor says he will sign the Bill. Get it to him Pronto-like.

That should cause the left to go off on another tangent.....huh?
evil6.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom