• 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

It's almost as comical as this law meaning that black families won't be able to buy food on their family vacations in Indiana, and gay people being locked away out of public site, and nobody but middle aged white Christian men being able to get gas at all of the gas stations in Indiana, and doctors refusing to treat gay men who need medical care.

Sadly, there are several on this forum who would support all of that, and quite a large percentage of middle americans and southerners. Lets not forget that poll taken on Republicans in Mississippi in which half of them said they would support a law banning interracial marriage. But wait, Republicans are supposed to be the party of "freedom".
 
Go to Indiana and open a business then phone the local media and announce you will not serve the Pollocks.

See what happens

I think I'd starve - who cares about white ethnics? Better to tell the local media that I REFUSE to serve any lesbian black disabled muslim females. I would quote Sara Silvermans jokes about how they stink, but they don't know it because no one can smell themselves. And hang a few swastika's, play Deutschland Uber Alles in the lobby as background music, and nail up a few posters making fun of Kenyans, Mohammad, and Michelle Obama.

Finally, I'd brag that I refuse to recycle, use plastic grocery bags, and are a proud recruiter for the KKK.

If I was not drawn, quartered and burned, it could be fun.
 
Last edited:
All the homos have to do is NOT ADVERTISE THAT THEY ARE GAY, and nobody in Indiana will know, or care.

All Indiana is saying is, go ahead and practice your unnatural sexual lifestyles behind closed doors. Just don't advertise it or expect special "rights" in our state!
 
Isn't that special! :) Homosexuals are so special. Especially the ones that are just so damned proud that they're not breeders that they make sure everyone knows that it's their defining characteristic. It's just.. well... special. :) Superduper extra special. Like my brother tries to tell me all the time. Homosexuals like him have been responsible for all the great things in society because they don't have to be bothered with breeding expectations like those boring and tedious cisgender (lol) types.

glad we're in agreement then
 
Again. He claims it was because of DADT. In reality, it was his own discomfort and the discomfort of other guys about having to serve with gay men, which they were almost certainly already doing without knowing it. The difference was that the gay guys didn't have to lie to get in, get that opportunity to serve their country, and however shallow it may seem, get that opportunity to get the great benefits like steady pay, healthcare, 20 year full retirement, college money, and much more. Straight men and women prior to DADT could do so without having to lie about who they were attracted to, gay men and women couldn't. After DADT, the lying wasn't as overt, rather more of just hiding who they were with a little less worry if someone only suspected they were gay (and that was dependent on what job you had).

My husband was a Marine, out there in the deserts, joining after DADT was in place, with the least of his worries being "oh my god that guy is gay or might be gay". He was a sailor when it was repealed and again not really much of an issue. Even more of "not an issue" for me in the Navy reserves. We had one guy during the training question berthing arrangements and there were people from the rest of the unit basically telling him to get over it, he wouldn't be required to sleep naked with any man, gay or straight if he didn't want to.

Everyone in his unit had their suspicions about the guy. DADT meant they weren't addressed and one night my buddy wakes up because someone is undoing his zipper. That was very bad for morale. I believe him.
 
Families are families. There is really no objective ideal, perfect, or "optimal" family, whether traditional or non-traditional families. All sorts of families work just as well at raising children, including same sex parented families, where the parents actually are in a relationship as well as families were two or more people of the same sex are raising children while not in a relationship. Mainly, there are just factors that tend to cause issues with children, and not having a person of a certain sex in the household parenting has never been shown to be one of those factors.

I disagree, because of the data that is out there. Two parent households, where both parents are active in raising a child, where the child is breast fed, etc tend to have the least amount negative outcomes. This can and has been studied.

Stats are not predictive of any particular individual-but thats now how stats work.
 
Everyone in his unit had their suspicions about the guy. DADT meant they weren't addressed and one night my buddy wakes up because someone is undoing his zipper. That was very bad for morale. I believe him.

Had suspicions that he was gay or that he would sexually assault someone? See this is the issue. Your buddy or yourself are wrongfully assuming that being gay automatically increases a persons likelihood of sexually assaulting a person, even if the same sex. That isn't reality. Plenty of straight people have sexually assaulted members of the same sex. The vast majority of gay men and women would not sexually assault anyone, ever. Just like the vast majority of straight men and women. Even if you looked at percentages, rather than numbers, this is true.
 
I disagree, because of the data that is out there. Two parent households, where both parents are active in raising a child, where the child is breast fed, etc tend to have the least amount negative outcomes. This can and has been studied.

Stats are not predictive of any particular individual-but thats now how stats work.

And that would mean the opposite factors, having a single parent household, having uninvolved parents, no breastfeeding (which actually should be studied better to determine if there was a real issue or if the mother gave up really quickly or if the mother simply didn't want to try, which could really show it going back to how involved the parent(s) are rather than the actual breastfeeding itself), and other things, such as a lack of stable relationship or divorce, cause issues, as I said.

No study has concluded that having the only factor in parenting different when raising children being the relative genders of the parents causes any negative outcomes. In similar parenting situations, gender of the parents simply is not a factor.
 
Stupid Republicans. Neither federal nor other states have this "fix". LOL... The gay rights lobby screams that this bill is different and needs fixed, and the pea-brained Republicans fix it by adding restrictive language that is actually different and not written anywhere else. Kudos to the gay rights lobby...sort of.

Because the Gay rights lobby is none to bright either. Had they suggested to the GOP pinheads that they would rather have Indiana adopt a state-wide law prohibiting discrimination of gays, in return for a some kind of religious exemption it would have been a win-win.

So - the bill's "fix" is to allow discrimination anyway, but if only there were a general law banning discrimination of gays THEN this bill could not be used as a defense. In short, you don't need a religious exemption IF there is no law against discrimination it to begin with.

Welcome to American politics.

I suspect that even if such a win-win were proposed, that it would have been soundly rejected by the LGBT lobby and activists.

If you have been following mass media over the past few days, you will have learned from an economist at the U.S. Department of Labor that defenders of religious freedom are “Nazis.” Take a moment to ponder that assertion. Roll it around in your head for a while. You’ll be hearing a lot more fighting words as we enter the next phase of Christian life in America.

Sample the hate that has been spewed at the state of Indiana in the past week, and faithful Christians in recent years, by gay activists and their allies. We are “bigots,” “Neanderthals” and “haters,” whose views must be ritually rejected by anyone hoping to keep a job in today’s America — even in a Catholic high school. Where will this end? Is there a logical stopping point for this aggression, where Christians are left in peace?
Gay Totalitarianism and the Coming Persecution of Christians

LGBT Totalitarianists and complicit Biased Lame Steam Media be not proud
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All the homos have to do is NOT ADVERTISE THAT THEY ARE GAY, and nobody in Indiana will know, or care.

All Indiana is saying is, go ahead and practice your unnatural sexual lifestyles behind closed doors. Just don't advertise it or expect special "rights" in our state!

How childish.
 
All the homos have to do is NOT ADVERTISE THAT THEY ARE GAY, and nobody in Indiana will know, or care.

All Indiana is saying is, go ahead and practice your unnatural sexual lifestyles behind closed doors. Just don't advertise it or expect special "rights" in our state!
Why not take the easier route? Have all the bigots, religious zealots, ignorants and other control freaks go somewhere else where freedom is not the founding principle and establish their own theocracy?
 
Maybe it won't be long before one has to bear a mark of identification in order to engage in business where only those ascribing to the liberal ideology will bear that mark

Discrimination is part of liberty. Not everyone is prepared to actually be free

All the homos have to do is NOT ADVERTISE THAT THEY ARE GAY, and nobody in Indiana will know, or care.

All Indiana is saying is, go ahead and practice your unnatural sexual lifestyles behind closed doors. Just don't advertise it or expect special "rights" in our state!

A small correction -- All the bigots in Indiana are saying is, go ahead and . . .

Does anyone else think it is just a bit strange when a person asks to be treated as the majority are treated and SOME people think that means the person is demanding "special rights"?
 
A small correction -- All the bigots in Indiana are saying is, go ahead and . . .

Does anyone else think it is just a bit strange when a person asks to be treated as the majority are treated and SOME people think that means the person is demanding "special rights"?

Bigotry isn't supposed to make sense.
 
Bigotry isn't supposed to make sense.

What is it about people like you who don't understand that someone investing their own money into a business that isn't a requirement for the general public have the right to make dumbass policies all the time and if those policies are indeed failures they will go out of business. If you people would only be able to legislate against stupidity we wouldn't have any liberals.
 
Discrimination is part of liberty. Not everyone is prepared to actually be free

What is it about people like you who don't understand that someone investing their own money into a business that isn't a requirement for the general public have the right to make dumbass policies all the time and if those policies are indeed failures they will go out of business. If you people would only be able to legislate against stupidity we wouldn't have any liberals.

I agree it is the right of a business owner to make dumbass policies but why fight against a law that has the potential to increase one's customer base?
 
I agree it is the right of a business owner to make dumbass policies but why fight against a law that has the potential to increase one's customer base?

Why do you care if some business owners choose not to cater to another group that affects their income? It is the owners decision what affects their base as it should be. People make stupid decisions all the time and that is what causes business failures. Let them fail. Unless a gay couple displays open affection in public how would anyone know they were gay and why would they support a business owner they know is biased against gays.
 
My point on this thread has always been

As a business owner I should have the right to discriminate who I do business with. No shirt, No shoes, no service.

What if a customer, Gay or not, wants me to put "F888 YOU A**HOLE B**CH" on a cake. Do I have a right to refuse as I would find that offensive? Perhaps two grooms on a cake is as offensive to the baker as the words above.

It has become that every group, regardless of whether it be race, color, creed, sexuality, age, etc. has become a protected class. The ONLY class that is not protected are White Christians.
 
I agree it is the right of a business owner to make dumbass policies but why fight against a law that has the potential to increase one's customer base?
Where were they fightin against anything? They were asked a dumb question designed to do exactly what it did. Spark outrage, and demonize a group of people in the process.
 
Had suspicions that he was gay or that he would sexually assault someone? See this is the issue. Your buddy or yourself are wrongfully assuming that being gay automatically increases a persons likelihood of sexually assaulting a person, even if the same sex. That isn't reality. Plenty of straight people have sexually assaulted members of the same sex. The vast majority of gay men and women would not sexually assault anyone, ever. Just like the vast majority of straight men and women. Even if you looked at percentages, rather than numbers, this is true.

No, you are projecting. You can "suspect" someone is gay, that does NOT mean you suspect they are going to sexually assault anyone. Dont confuse the two concepts. And dont forget the fact that this guy DID sexually assault his fellow Marine in combat.

If you can't see how destructive that was to morale you are denying the plain truth.
 
So... Where's the out cry when Muslim businesses refuse to serve gays?

Here's an example:

 
And that would mean the opposite factors, having a single parent household, having uninvolved parents, no breastfeeding (which actually should be studied better to determine if there was a real issue or if the mother gave up really quickly or if the mother simply didn't want to try, which could really show it going back to how involved the parent(s) are rather than the actual breastfeeding itself), and other things, such as a lack of stable relationship or divorce, cause issues, as I said.

No study has concluded that having the only factor in parenting different when raising children being the relative genders of the parents causes any negative outcomes. In similar parenting situations, gender of the parents simply is not a factor.

Humans are social creatures, and especially for young children the presence of positive individuals of both sexes appears to be the most beneficial. As an example little boys without a male in the home have higher rates of criminal activity, and girls have higher rates of teen pregnancy, etc.

Additionally there are higher rates of problems in the gay community, like domestic violence and drug use. Does that mean its a problem for all gay parents? Of course not. Is that a concern in finding the absolute best environment for a child? Absolutely.
 
So... Where's the out cry when Muslim businesses refuse to serve gays?

Here's an example:



Because this has nothing to do with gays getting wedding cakes and everything to do with lefty identity politics.
The left is simply paralyzed when it comes to minorities who also disagree with gay marriage because of religious or cultural reasons.
But then again, they are a fellow identity politic group, and so they are allies.
 
I suspect that even if such a win-win were proposed, that it would have been soundly rejected by the LGBT lobby and activists.

Gay Totalitarianism and the Coming Persecution of Christians

LGBT Totalitarianists and complicit Biased Lame Steam Media be not proud

He spat out Nazi's? I can think of no comment by the RFRA haters that more fully demonstrates the pathological stupidity infecting the left. Mind you, this economist is well educated and a professional. His sin is not in an exaggeration, but in how he let his raw emotions lower his IQ to single digits, a mockery of his humanities education.

Two days ago was the anniversary of “Judenboycott,” the first in a wave of anti-Semitic measures. On April 1, 1933 the iNAZI's called for the boycott of Jewish businesses, even though they represented 1 percent of Germany's population. Their supportive propagandists spread hatred of a religious based group, and newspaper "Der Sturmer" called for a non-violent boycott to close all Jewish business.

SA storm troopers were ordered to stand in front of Jewish shops, department stores and offices to "protest" the Jew shops. Large Stars of David were painted on storefronts and propaganda signs were displayed, such as one pronouncing, “Germans, defend yourselves against Jewish atrocity propaganda—buy only at German shops!”.

The boycott marked the beginning of a series of anti-Semitic laws that gradually alienated Jews from German society. And, as we all know, by 1938 it led to "Kristallnacht", literally (aka “Night of Broken Glass,”). Jewish businesses were be destroyed as well as synagogues. The windows of an estimated 7,500 Jewish-owned stores were broken, creating a blanket of glass in the streets.

Now, how is it that it is the Christian businesses that are Nazi's? How is it that the campaign of vilification and the boycott and physical threats against any Christian business that EVEN EXPRESSES an opinion makes them Nazi's?

Yes there are "nazi's", self-styled storm trooper propagandists making threats, boycotting, and calling for violence against Christian business(es) - And we all know who is seeking to destroy those who express a different opinion.

We should thank this economist for his blunder, he has found a perfect analogy for what the gay-left lobby is about (albeit one that mocks him).
 
Last edited:
So... Where's the out cry when Muslim businesses refuse to serve gays?

Here's an example:
lol

Steven Crowder. :lamo


Love the part about how Mooslums might blow him up in the cake shop.


An actual picture of Steven Crowder (no, I'm not kidding)

crowder_zpsgswg4cel.jpg


Yes, we know Mr. Crowder, we know.
 
What is it about people like you who don't understand that someone investing their own money into a business that isn't a requirement for the general public have the right to make dumbass policies all the time and if those policies are indeed failures they will go out of business. If you people would only be able to legislate against stupidity we wouldn't have any liberals.

like I said...
 
Back
Top Bottom