• 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

Style, noise, and feelings over the facts of the matter and pro-left propaganda spread far and wide in over-coverage in the news BLSM.

Textbook libbo operation!

Hobby lobby and hands up dont shoot come to mind.

This is merely the latest example, and while more important issues, like the Iran talks are going on (and failing).
 
Simpleχity;1064484835 said:
That law was originally passed to protect religious minorities ... like Native Americans smoking peyote in a religious ceremony. LGBT wasn't even on the scene then.

But this originally noble legislation is being manipulated 20 years later for totally different effects.

It wasn't that long ago, the 1990's-the same era that Bill Clinton passed the defense of marriage act. But this merely illustrates the law of unintended consequences-which is one reason power should be diffuse and laws should be minimized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
 
Hobby lobby and hands up dont shoot come to mind.

This is merely the latest example, and while more important issues, like the Iran talks are going on (and failing).

Agreed. All show, and little substance, well substance of any value anyway, and all emotion and little logic, as Obama's foreign policy goes careening from one disaster to another, one ill-considered position to another.
 
Define bigotry. A dictionary definition please, not what you want it to be. Then explain how me not baking a cake for a gay wedding is bigotry.

GLADLY! you know i have already dont this in some of these threads right?
i would never use my own version because that would be mentally retarded, i use the facts and actual defintion thats why your claim failed

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

treating them different and not making them a cake based on thier own prejudice and opinions of gay people (a group) who they feel through thier intolerance are not equal to them, not good enough for marriage and lessers so thier rights (or the law) dont matter

like i said by definition they are bigots and its bigotry

also notice that the definition of bigotry doesnt mention exemptions. Religion, conscience and feelings dont change the fact its bigotry

im a chrisitian myself and if i denied service to gays or a service based on it being a gay that i give to others that would in fact make me a bigot :shrug:
facts win again
 
Last edited:

I notice Baier did not explain why any differences from the federal RFRA are significant. The Indiana law creates a cause of action for private persons in civil suits that do not involve government, which the federal RFRA does not, but I don't consider that significant. Whatever state public accommodation law one private person might use to sue another, the question would still be whether the state law--a government action--violated the person's constitutional right to the free exercise of religion as defined by the state's RFRA.

As the Supreme Court interpreted the federal RFRA in Hobby Lobby, it includes both the other provisions of the Indiana RFRA Baier referred to: it is available to private persons as a defense in a suit; and those private persons may include for-profit corporations--like Hobby Lobby. It may be that other state RFRA's do not include these provisions simply because they were passed before the Hobby Lobby decision. Some of those states may choose to amend their RFRA's to reflect that decision.

By the way, the Hobby Lobby decision turned on the same "least burdensome means" requirement that state RFRA's, including Indiana's, incorporate. HHS already had another rule which relieved for-profit religious corporations of the duty to cover contraceptives in their employee health care plans. The Court held that HHS had not shown why that rule, which burdened the right to free exercise of religion of Hobby Lobby's owners less than the rule they were objecting to, could not be extended to other for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby.

The attacks on this law make even more clear just how hostile to First Amendment freedoms pseudo-liberals are. There is nothing truly liberal about these people, millions of whom are now taking up space in this country. They don't like the First Amendment any better than the Second. In fact they have contempt for the Constitution generally, just like their president, whose rear they are always trying to guard.
 
Last edited:
GLADLY! you know i have already dont this in some of these threads right?
i would never use my own version because that would be mentally retarded, i use the facts and actual defintion thats why your claim failed

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

treating them different and not making them a cake based on thier own prejudice and opinions of gay people (a group) who they feel through thier intolerance are not equal to them, not good enough for marriage and lessers so thier rights (or the law) dont matter

like i said by definition they are bigots and its bigotry

also notice that the definition of bigotry doesnt mention exemptions. Religion, conscience and feelings dont change the fact its bigotry

im a chrisitian myself and if i denied service to gays or a service based on it being a gay that i give to others that would in fact make me a bigot :shrug:
facts win again

Me not baking you a cake for your gay wedding is not an example of me treating you with hatred or intolerance. I neither hate you nor am I intolerant of you. I just don't wish to lend my services to an event that my conscience disapproves of. So it isn't bigotry any more than me not baking a cake for a party at planned parenthood would be.
 
Me not baking you a cake for your gay wedding is not an example of me treating you with hatred or intolerance. I neither hate you nor am I intolerant of you. I just don't wish to lend my services to an event that my conscience disapproves of. So it isn't bigotry any more than me not baking a cake for a party at planned parenthood would be.


You are intolerant of gay christians that want to marry.
 
I thought you supposed to be smart and all.

You don't know that Presidents don't pass laws?

He doesn't know much about laws passed anywhere; must less California. He just pretends he does on DP. :lol:
 
1.)Me not baking you a cake for your gay wedding is not an example of me treating you with hatred or intolerance.
2.) I neither hate you nor am I intolerant of you.
3.) I just don't wish to lend my services to an event that my conscience disapproves of.
4.) So it isn't bigotry any more than me not baking a cake for a party at planned parenthood would be.

1.) yes it is a definition of intolerance, again by definition
2.) agaian facts disagree
3.) yes because your opinions conscience of gays view them as lessers
4.) again your claim as already been proven false and dishonest

i guess it wasnt bigotry to not make women bosses simply cause they were women then either, I mean you hire them so you don't hate them nor are you intolerant of them :lamo
conscience does not change bigotry.
sorry there is nobody honest, educated and objective that will ever take the claim and lie seriously
facts win again
 
And FYI: DOMA was passed by a veto proof majority - which threatened to override, and pushed by the conservatives. So it would have been law no matter what he did.

He *should not* have signed it - and regrets he did...some saw it as a stop gap measure - as it was in direct response to a Hawaii 1993 ruling in favor of same sex marriage, and other states feared it could happen in their states.

As it turned out - DOMA actually encouraged more litigation, pushed what *might* have taken SSM proponents a bit longer - to achieve what we have today, 3/4 of the country legally able to marry -- and soon a SCOTUS ruling likely in favor -- for something no one could have imagined would have happened so quick.

DOMA! - unintended consequently - helped push it along.

Thanks Unconstitutional D o Ma!
 
Funding is another issue-its legal and I would be amazed to find out that the pro-SSM crowd isn't pouring funding into Indiana.

However, it was a proposition voted on by voters. Voters who have to be state residents. The prop passed because of the voters, not because of funding.

Surely you are not so naive as to believe that funding doesn't play a major role in US elections? Prop 8 passed because of a very expensive and deceptive propoganda campaign that was financed almost entirely by Mormons.
 
You are intolerant of gay christians that want to marry.

Whats the matter? Run out of emotocons to make your argument for you? You were doing better before you started using actual words. Stick with what seems to be working for you.
 
Surely you are not so naive as to believe that funding doesn't play a major role in US elections? Prop 8 passed because of a very expensive and deceptive propoganda campaign that was financed almost entirely by Mormons.

Funding and advertisements dont pass laws. Im not denying there is influence, but its not a guarantee. The law was passed by voters, and in fact would not have been passed if not for minority voters (generally democrats) who opposed gay marriage.

These are facts.
 
1.) yes it is a definition of intolerance, again by definition
Opposing gay marriage is not in and of itself an example of intolerance. So you are wrong. But what else is new. The rest of your post is just your usual childish gibberish.
 
Opposing gay marriage is not in and of itself an example of intolerance. So you are wrong. But what else is new. The rest of your post is just your usual childish gibberish.

If it is not an example of intolerance then what is it?
 
And FYI: DOMA was passed by a veto proof majority - which threatened to override, and pushed by the conservatives. So it would have been law no matter what he did.

He *should not* have signed it - and regrets he did...some saw it as a stop gap measure - as it was in direct response to a Hawaii 1993 ruling in favor of same sex marriage, and other states feared it could happen in their states.

As it turned out - DOMA actually encouraged more litigation, pushed what *might* have taken SSM proponents a bit longer - to achieve what we have today, 3/4 of the country legally able to marry -- and soon a SCOTUS ruling likely in favor -- for something no one could have imagined would have happened so quick.

DOMA! - unintended consequently - helped push it along.

Thanks Unconstitutional D o Ma!

Bill not only signed it into law, he bragged about it in election commercials during the 98 midterms. He also implemented dont ask dont tell, all on his own. Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I dont see the left calling him a bigot, wonder why?

The Bill Clinton Hypocrisy on Gay Marriage - Heather Ginsberg
 
RFRA Continued from post 2932.

There are differences with federal law, and some other state laws. But these differences are not directly related to the hysteria over discrimination (which is really a trojan horse for left wing hysteria over any kind of religious exemption for any reason). And they are NOT, contrary to fox, different from all 19 states and the federal RFRA

They are: (see: Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog)

- [1] It explicitly protects the exercise of religion by entities as well as individuals. Its enumeration of entities includes “a corporation”, without limiting this to closely-held companies.

- [2] The bill’s protections may be invoked when a person’s exercise of religion is “likely” to be substantially burdened by government action, not just when it has been burdened.

- [3] The bill also permits the assertion of free exercise rights as a claim or defense in judicial or administrative proceedings even if the government is not a party to the proceedings. The relevant governmental entity has a right to intervene in such cases to respond to the RFRA claim. A remedy under the bill is only available against the government; suits by employees or applicants invoking the law against private employers are precluded.

As any sane person can read, this has nothing to do with the evils of discrimination. It has to do with defining religious rights protection for more entities, permitting defensive legal action when it is likely they will be burdened (not after the fact), and the unambiguous assertion of protection of rights in any judicial proceeding, even if government is not the one suing or being counter-sued.

EVEN SO, NONE OF THIS IS CONSISTENTLY DIFFERENT FROM RFRA APPLICATION FEDERAL AND/OR SOME OTHER STATES.

First, remember that the legal dictionary act, which already applies to RFRA's. A “corporation” is treated as "a person". Seven of nine SCOTUS justices also agreed in that at least for closely held corporations, such as Hobby Lobby, that is true. Indiana's Section 7.3 portion tracks the closely held federal standard. But it also permits a broader corporation to protect its exercise of religion - for example, a Christian book publisher.

Second, Section 9 provides protections for “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened.” While it is true that the “is likely to” language does not appear in the federal RFRA, I does not add anything of concern. It’s effectively asking if there will be a likelihood of success on the merits. In the case of Hobby Lobby a pre-enforcement challenge was brought, claiming that they were likely to have a substantial burden. No burden was ever inflicted.

Third, and most significantly, the law provides a defense in a private suit where the government is not a party. In other words, the law provides a defense against a both a government or private suit. It might, in some cases, provide an RFRA defense. If Biff and Bruce sue a photographer for failing to photograph their wedding under a local non-discrimination ordinance, the photographer than raises the state RFRA as a defense. Even though the government is not a party, RFRA can be raised as a defense in the judicial proceeding. The court would have to determine whether the application of the non-discrimination ordinance substantially burdens the photographers exercise of religion.

Mind you, this is STILL NOT consistently different that current law. Because of ambiguity in the wording of federal law, whether or not a person can use RFRA defense in private suits is split. In four circuits (CA2, CA9, CA8, CADC) they hold that RFRA can be raised as a defense in citizen suits. Other circuits (CA6, CA7) do not permit private defendants to raise RFRA as a defense in private suits.

The US Government has taken the position that the RFRA can be raised as a defense in lawsuits brought by private parties.

Finally, Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA. In contrast, Mississippi’s RFRA, which only requires a “burden,” not a “substantial” one, deviates significantly from the federal statute.

So no, the RFRA does not provide immunity. It only allows a defendant in either a government or private suit to raise a defense which judge must consider, like any other defense under Title VII or the ADA. It is not an authorization to discriminate.

And the claim that Indiana's RFRA is different than 19 other States and the federal RFRA, and is tailored to make it easy to discriminate is obvious horse-poo.
 
Last edited:
Many voters admit to being taken in by the rhetoric of ads for Obama.
Those are the rules, you can't play by them until it doesn't suit you.
Hence the lolz about the butthurt.

When the left uses the govt to coerce everyone, its "progress".
When the left isn't happy with the result of govt actions, its time to shriek.

You have to see how silly that looks.

There's a difference between voting for a person based on lies and voting to restrict access to government rights, benefits, recognition for a relationship based on lies.

But since such a restriction violates the Equal Protection Clause (as I'm almost certain the SCOTUS will rule as well in a few months), it doesn't matter. As was demonstrated by the California case, you can't win if you can't show how you are harmed if a law isn't in place but someone else is harmed by the law.
 
There's a difference between voting for a person based on lies and voting to restrict access to government rights, benefits, recognition for a relationship based on lies.

But since such a restriction violates the Equal Protection Clause (as I'm almost certain the SCOTUS will rule as well in a few months), it doesn't matter. As was demonstrated by the California case, you can't win if you can't show how you are harmed if a law isn't in place but someone else is harmed by the law.

Im in California. My 2nd amendment protected rights are violated every day because of lefty rhetoric. Its hard to get a CCW, I can't own magazines over 10 rounds, and my AR15 has to have a funny grip installed. When the federal AWB expired, lefties shrieked that teens would be "machine gunning" each other down in the streets. Not only did that not happen, but crime dropped. The left claimed CCW would turn people into cowboys-not only did that NOT happen, crime dropped.

NONE of those restrictions are based in any FACT regarding safety but rather lefty rhetoric. If the left could get away with it-it would ban guns in my state-the lefts legislators have said as much.



So excuse me if I find your appeal to be lacking.
 
Last edited:
1._Opposing gay marriage is not in and of itself an example of intolerance.
2.) So you are wrong. But what else is new.
3.) The rest of your post is just your usual childish gibberish.

1.) i agree good thing i never made that claim, if you disagree simply qoute me saying otherwise you will fail . . .in fact there are quotes of me saying your exact phrase
2.) see #1 since your premise/strawman is based on a lie i never said the only thing wrong is your claim
3.) translation: facts proved your post wrong so now you are deflecting. Ill be sticking with facts over your proven wrong biased pinon, thanks

please let us know when you have ONE fact that supports your failed and proven wrong claim . . .one . . . . thank you
your post fails and facts wins aagin
 
Back
Top Bottom