• 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

And if you convince enough people, you can get a constitutional amendment passed enabling such laws. That's how it works in a constitutional democracy

Good luck.

And you see nothing wrong with it so long as it's legal?
 
And? If alcohol stops people from working, shouldn't you just ban it so no-one misses work due to alcoholism?

It's not a matter of stopping people from working.

Alcohol has physiological effects that minors are not able to consent to.
 
It's not a matter of stopping people from working.

Alcohol has physiological effects that minors are not able to consent to.

So keep it illegal for them to drink, just make it legal for them to purchase it so that commerce isn't hindered.
 
And you see nothing wrong with it so long as it's legal?

Whether or not I see something wrong with it is immaterial.

I think it's wrong when it rains when I planned on doing something outdoors that required nice weather, but it rains anyway. That's how the weather works.

And in a constitutional democracy, you can get the govt to do anything, but only if you get enough people to agree with you. That's how our govt works.

And if you think that people should not be able to have the govt they want to have, but only be allowed to have the govt you think they should be allowed to have, then you are just as coercive and dismissive of "liberty" as anyone else.
 
Conventions in Indiana? :shock: I've been to conventions all over the world, and never one there. I'm not sure how the threats to Pence are going to work...they said Arizona was dead after Brewer signed her bill into law, and tourism hasn't suffered there.

I'll bet SCOTUS will overturn this easily.

No, SCOTUS will likely not. The Indiana RFRA largely mirrors the 1993 federal RFRA, which has already been tested at SCOTUS and passed muster. In fact, it is the SCOTUS application of the federal RFRA that has led many who supported it to now oppose the Indiana version.
 
Whether or not I see something wrong with it is immaterial.

I think it's wrong when it rains when I planned on doing something outdoors that required nice weather, but it rains anyway. That's how the weather works.

And in a constitutional democracy, you can get the govt to do anything, but only if you get enough people to agree with you. That's how our govt works.

And if you think that people should not be able to have the govt they want to have, but only be allowed to have the govt you think they should be allowed to have, then you are just as coercive and dismissive of "liberty" as anyone else.

Wouldn't that only be a valid argument if I stopped them from leaving or put up barriers for them to get past for them to leave? If my system of government supported the absolute right of people to choose the political surroundings in which they lived and thus allowed them to come and go as they pleased, in what way would I be holding them down? If all I did was say they could not use the government to force their will on others is that really coercive?
 
How? If someone doesn't provide you a service they have not altered your condition. How were you harmed?

You're assuming they haven't altered your condition, but there is a harm in every case - some choices are eliminated only because of some characteristic like color, religion, sexual orientation. The harm could be great although in 2015 likely small in most cases. We've discussed hospitals, but the harm there is obvious and immense - refusing service might result in your death.

The harm could be smaller - my largest client is in town and wants to dine at the famous steak house. I make a reservation, we show up on time, dressed appropriately, courteous, etc. and find out they only serve whites and he's black or I'm black. Sure, I can find A restaurant, but my client is unhappy and that might affect my business, all because of arbitrary discrimination. Etc. We could come up with examples of how discrimination harms individuals all day long.
 
People who provide essential goods and services don't have the same rights to religious beliefs?

I don't give a rat's ass about religious beliefs. I am saying people should be able to discriminate for ANYTHING, be it religion, race, or politics.

But essential services have to be held to a different standard because they are, well, essential. What would be an essential private service? The first thing that pops to mind is a pharmacy. Or a doctor but that can probably be handled by licensing.

I am fine with one's bigotry preventing someone from getting a banana smoothie. I am not ok with it preventing them from getting their insulin.
 
You're assuming they haven't altered your condition, but there is a harm in every case - some choices are eliminated only because of some characteristic like color, religion, sexual orientation. The harm could be great although in 2015 likely small in most cases. We've discussed hospitals, but the harm there is obvious and immense - refusing service might result in your death.

Even in the case of hospitals if you are refused care they did not alter your condition. Sure, you might die without care, but that consequence was already in motion before you showed up, so they could not possibly be responsible for it.

The harm could be smaller - my largest client is in town and wants to dine at the famous steak house. I make a reservation, we show up on time, dressed appropriately, courteous, etc. and find out they only serve whites and he's black or I'm black. Sure, I can find A restaurant, but my client is unhappy and that might affect my business, all because of arbitrary discrimination. Etc. We could come up with examples of how discrimination harms individuals all day long.

Ah..I see, well, I'm not sure it is reasonable to hold someone accountable for your clients feelings.
 
I don't give a rat's ass about religious beliefs. I am saying people should be able to discriminate for ANYTHING, be it religion, race, or politics.

OK. May bad.

But essential services have to be held to a different standard because they are, well, essential. What would be an essential private service? The first thing that pops to mind is a pharmacy. Or a doctor but that can probably be handled by licensing.

I am fine with one's bigotry preventing someone from getting a banana smoothie. I am not ok with it preventing them from getting their insulin.

Food is not essential?

How do the people who provide those essential goods and services come to have less of a right to discriminate?

How does the govt come to have the power to forbid those people from exercising that right?
 
Whether or not I see something wrong with it is immaterial.

I think it's wrong when it rains when I planned on doing something outdoors that required nice weather, but it rains anyway. That's how the weather works.

And in a constitutional democracy, you can get the govt to do anything, but only if you get enough people to agree with you. That's how our govt works.

And if you think that people should not be able to have the govt they want to have, but only be allowed to have the govt you think they should be allowed to have, then you are just as coercive and dismissive of "liberty" as anyone else.
The US is not a constitutional democracy. Democracy is a terrible political system. It's tyranny of the majority.
 
No, SCOTUS will likely not. The Indiana RFRA largely mirrors the 1993 federal RFRA, which has already been tested at SCOTUS and passed muster. In fact, it is the SCOTUS application of the federal RFRA that has led many who supported it to now oppose the Indiana version.

I will lay a Canuck dollar you are in error.
 
That's one possibility.

But the people have rejected that choice.

I find it absolutely amazing over seventy percent of the people oppose lowering the drinking age. Who here really believes only 25% of the people drink underage?
 
In what respect?
Basic human rights.

Pence signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com
Washington (CNN)Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's decision to sign into law a measure that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of "religious freedom" has left the NCAA fretting ahead of next week's men's basketball Final Four in Indianapolis.

Perhaps a substantial burden to be proven? Perhaps they are not legally related?
Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4
(also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[1] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government - for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal - because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.
 
Even in the case of hospitals if you are refused care they did not alter your condition. Sure, you might die without care, but that consequence was already in motion before you showed up, so they could not possibly be responsible for it.

OK, this is why debating with libertarians is often so pointless. Sure, you're correctly repeating standard libertarian ideology, and it's totally unhinged from reality, unconscionable from a public policy standpoint, and obviously morally repugnant.

Ah..I see, well, I'm not sure it is reasonable to hold someone accountable for your clients feelings.

Well, to be fair, you wouldn't hold a hospital responsible for withholding life saving care, so obviously this isn't a problem in libertarian land.... :roll:
 
I'm not sure what point you are making since you just made mine. In determining that the federal RFRA could not be extended to the states, SCOTUS encouraged the states to pass their own, as Indiana has now done.

Give me time and I will educate myself.
I will get back to you on this.
 
The three hospitals in my general area are all private and operated by the same corporation. I would have to travel almost an hour to the nearest not-for-profit hospital. To permit discrimination in healthcare related services is unconscionable.
Are you sure that's the case? Generally speaking, a single corporation holding a monopoly on hospital services in such a large area would not be legal under the Clayton Antitrust Act.
 
Food is not essential?

How do the people who provide those essential goods and services come to have less of a right to discriminate?

How does the govt come to have the power to forbid those people from exercising that right?

Yes, food is essential. Banana smoothies? Not so much. :)

Liberty is always a balancing act. For me, personally, the government should only infringe on one's liberty when it GREATLY benefits the people and doesn't overburden them. For example, I am fine with not allowing explosives on commercial planes. The tradeoff is worth it.

Preventing people from getting their meds is not worth a person's right to do whatever they want. Preventing someone from getting a cake is.

I do limit this to private non-essential services. Publicly traded corporations should not be able to discriminate. They receive several financial advantages and protections under the law from the government and if they want to enjoy those advantages then they shouldn't be able to discriminate. And of course most grocery stores in the US are publicly traded corporations.

I think laws should change with the times. I think there was a time in our recent history that public accommodation laws made sense. But I believe we have advanced enough that they are no longer needed. The overwhelming majority of business owners just want to make a profit.
 
Back
Top Bottom