• 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

How can another man trample my rights?

lol you don't think oppressive laws have ever led to violent reaction before? Sometimes it's completely justified even
 
lol you don't think oppressive laws have ever led to violent reaction before? Sometimes it's completely justified even
That has nothing to do with the post you quoted.
 
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.

That is besides the point. If someone has a heart attack and needs to be whisked to the nearest hospital...you see where this is going?

The hospitals all receive federal funding and insurance like medicaid/medicare and are therefore all subject to discrimination and public accomodation laws, in addition to that whole hippocratic oath thing.
 
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.

These "RFRA" do not care to make an exception about daily necessities like food or gas or medical treatment, because the rural voters, politicians, and religious zealots really are that hateful. There is no way to compromise with them. I don't care if it's a bakery for a wedding cake, i would sue the ****ers at the least to put an end to this filth
 
And here we go again.

The lefts generic, empty and baseless charges of " hate " and " Bigotry ". Its a silly attempt to bully your way into relevance.

No need for thoughtful diaglogue, just start throwing around vindictives when you dont get your way.

You realize there are consequences to calling everyone who disagrees with you childish names, right ?

It marginalizes your position and cheapens your agenda. No one but a few like minded people agree with you and you just wind up isolating yourself and setting yourself up for a huge backlash from the vast majority of Americans who you've just insulted

I like it. Keep it up !! Good plan !! Lol.

Yeah that's why support for national gay rights keeps going up. That is some backlash!

And yes those who oppose it are BIGOTS
 
Yeah that's why support for national gay rights keeps going up. That is some backlash!

And yes those who oppose it are BIGOTS
You sound like the bigot to me.
 
Mike Penace should think about the legacy he is leaving for his grandchildren and their grandchildren. Not many people can say their grandpa was a state governor, and if I could, I would want to be proud of his actions. In 20 more years, his actions are going look as ass backwards as supporting racial segregation.

It already does. Forget his legacy. His current standing in the view of anyone who isn't a petty hater is irreparably tarnished. The same holds true for the legislators, their voters, heck the entire state
 
I have a lot of rentals. I admit, I discriminate. Over many years of renting I have a good profile of good and bad renters. And this profile does show a pattern with specific groups of people. This includes homosexuals. Do I tell them outright, "Sorry, your type has an issue with paying your bills.." Um, No.

Until a pattern is observed and you face a class action lawsuit
 
That is besides the point. If someone has a heart attack and needs to be whisked to the nearest hospital...you see where this is going?
If this is something you feel passionate about, you can certainly start/support an effort to amend the Constitution and try get the actual law to be more in line with what you think it ought to be.

The hospitals all receive federal funding and insurance like medicaid/medicare and are therefore all subject to discrimination and public accomodation laws,.
Yes, already mentioned.
 
To "win" they would have to do so without losing in the near future the $50 million gamecon, the NCAA final four, that tech company with billions, tourist income, multi million dollar lawsuits over this unconstitutional law, masses of educated young residents who aren't gay etc. But their hopes to create an anti gay version of the "black codes" without any retribution are a complete fantasy

Take a look at the incredibly short list of "RFRA" cases that succeed and then try to convince me that this will offer ANY protection in those 12 counties that currently ban discrimination.

Believe me, gays who can afford it have been flocking out of the ghetto midwest for decades.

Consumerism works both ways, that's what's beautiful about it. For instance there are many, many companies I refuse to do business with specifically and exclusively because of their public political stances.

See how that works?

Tim-
 
I would like to say that AGENTJ is so awesome! ;)

Who was it that scared him off? Henrin? Good work man!
It was the facts. They win every time.
 
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.

Ok, so we're settled, in Indiana, it's ok to discriminate because democracy.
 
They shove their lifestyle in the faces of too many Americans and it's coming back to bite their butts. When they were simply an oddity that you knew existed but, it didn't affect your day-to-day then no one hardly noticed or cared. You come out and demand everyone accept you or get sued or thrown in jail and people take offence.

Yes, baking a cake for a homosexual is against your religion. I guess I missed that part in the bible. People like you are using your religion as a shield when you know it comes from your own personal bigotry. There is zero difference between this and hanging a "No Blacks Allowed" sign outside. Keep acting like Christ.
 
I've never gone to sell something and then withdraw the offer because of any of those thing, even when I could legally do so. Just because you are not like that doesn't that there are not people out there like that. Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that most of us would not discriminate even were we allowed to do so. But there is a major difference between what one should be legally allowed to do and what they would do.

Some people need laws to pause them from committing acts that society finds unacceptable. Most people wouldn't rob a bank under any circumstances, but some would, and so we have laws against robbing banks. I'm quite fine with society restricting behaviours that harm other members of society.
 
Consumerism works both ways, that's what's beautiful about it. For instance there are many, many companies I refuse to do business with specifically and exclusively because of their public political stances.

See how that works?

Tim-

Intolerance of intolerance is the only way to fight back and defend one's dignity after tactics like the state of indiana has just used

This analogy fails anyway because an identity like sexuality is not the same as an opinion like politics. Allowing grocery stores to ban all christians would actually be a more valid comparison, yet few of these religious fanatics and especially not the governor would ever tolerate THAT.

Few would abide banning blacks from restaurants either. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar. Guess indiana hasn't made any progress since jim crow after all. They're just targeting a different minority they don't care for
 
Last edited:
Ok, so we're settled, in Indiana, it's ok to discriminate because democracy.

i believe he referred to a constitutional amendment earlier, so that's where he's coming from. Which is kind of weird because that's at least 3 steps from a democracy

For these "RFRA" to pass muster in court (they're almost always rejected on a case by case basis), there'd have to be a repeal of "equal protection" and also an amendment specifically allowing such discrimination, since SCOTUS ruled that laws of animus towards a minority are unconstitutional

Alternatively, the congress could repeal ENDA and the civil rights act, to at least avoid violating equal protection
 
Please, the kind of trash who push for these laws live in shanty towns where everyone knows everyone

So you wish to end discrimination by calling people trash? That seems more like the problem than the solution.
 
its not protecting anybody, its infringing on others rights and why when push comes to shove it will completely fail and help solidify equal rights, its awesome actually :D
The original intent of RFRA was to protect NA religious practices. The 1993 federal bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY), easily passed in both houses of a majority Democratic Congress, and was signed into law by President Clinton. I highly doubt the 1993 legislators and Clinton ever envisioned this legislation as an enabling tool for discrimination and prejudice against the LGBT community.
 
So you wish to end discrimination by calling people trash? That seems more like the problem than the solution.

No, it's just a factual statement

Why must everything i say or do be part of some grand strategy to win bigots over? I'd rather just give them what they deserve
 
No, it's just a factual statement

Why must everything i say or do be part of some grand strategy to win bigots over? I'd rather just give them what they deserve

So only your bigotry is OK, got it. Can you identify any "shanty town" areas in Indiana so I can do some more research on this phenomenon?
 
Simpleχity;1064466747 said:
The original intent of RFRA was to protect NA religious practices. The 1993 federal bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY), easily passed in both houses of a majority Democratic Congress, and was signed into law by President Clinton. I highly doubt the 1993 legislators and Clinton ever envisioned this legislation as an enabling tool for discrimination and prejudice against the LGBT community.

Why not? in 1993 clinton and the legislatures passed "DA"DT and the "DOMA" solely to discriminate against LGBT

Their intent doesn't matter anyway because SCOTUS struck down the law as applies to the states. It only upheld the law in narrowly tailored fashion (health coverage for contraceptives) in the federal "hobby lobby" case and made clear the ruling is not to be justification for laws like indiana's "RFRA" that are so broad they would allow discrimination for any circumstance.

And that's why practically every court has ruled against landlords, "doctors", and employers who tried to use "RFRA" to discriminate
 
Last edited:
So only your bigotry is OK, got it. Can you identify any "shanty town" areas in Indiana so I can do some more research on this phenomenon?

intolerance of intolerance, /brokenrecord till it sinks in

The whole state except for a few cities. The kind of places that are 98% white

I grew up on the indiana border and i'm well aware how damn right wing and impoverished the rural areas are. Even the mayor of indianapolis said he wants to make sure this new law doesn't reflect on his city, as it's the rural bigotry masked as "religious freedom" that is behind it

Funny how they do not care about the *freedom* of LGBT, not at all
 
Back
Top Bottom