• 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

People that own houses get those same kinds of benefits. Does that mean I can walk into your house and demand you accommodate me?
Is your house a public accommodation? Can I come over and just take a shower? Maybe microwave some hot pockets?
 
You're free to practice your religion in your church, your house even on a street corner. If you have a public business that caters to the public, reaping government benefits then you cater to the public, you cannot pick and choose which demographic you want to serve based on your personal religious beliefs.

That's BS ....the Constitution gives me the right to believe what I want and exercise such expression in the public square and affords me the right not to force me to make a decision that would violate my moral conscience. Maybe it is time for you to find a little tolerance for those among you that don't agree or are offended by your claims.
 
Is your house a public accommodation? Can I come over and just take a shower? Maybe microwave some hot pockets?
Are businesses a public accomodation? What is your definition of public accomodations?
 
That's BS ....the Constitution gives me the right to believe what I want and exercise such expression in the public square and affords me the right not to force me to make a decision that would violate my moral conscience. Maybe it is time for you to find a little tolerance for those among you that don't agree or are offended by your claims.
You can believe whatever you want, however if your business caters to the public then you have to cater to the public. You cannot pick and choose which demographic you wanna sell too. We are a modern society and we are moving forward. We are not regressing back to the 1940s.
 
You can believe whatever you want, however if your business caters to the public then you have to cater to the public. You cannot pick and choose which demographic you wanna sell too. We are a modern society and we are moving forward. We are not regressing back to the 1940s.

You do realize the whole "moving forward" rhetoric is meaningless, right?
 
Are businesses a public accomodation? What is your definition of public accomodations?
U.S. Law states that public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public.
 
The outrage is faux because the issue is faux. No rights are being denied to anyone, LGBT or otherwise. Indiana's law is consistent with the federal statute and relevant SCOTUS decisions.

The untold millions Indiana has already lost due to corporations pulling their conventions is not faux. I gave Pence much more credit than this and respected him a great deal. He'll get it when he starts losing huge sports events--didn't learn much from Arizona did he ?
 
You can believe whatever you want, however if your business caters to the public then you have to cater to the public. You cannot pick and choose which demographic you wanna sell too. We are a modern society and we are moving forward. We are not regressing back to the 1940s.
Well there are 30 some states that have tightened their laws to protect religious freedom after they seen the blatant attack on it over the last couple of years. You see I do have the right to believe what I want and practice it in the public square. Imagine that, true liberty! sun of a gun.

Now I have an assortment of socks that you can choose from to stick it in the appropriate place....


socks.jpg


All stars and stripes.
 
You do realize the whole "moving forward" rhetoric is meaningless, right?
****ing libertarian bull****. No it's not. Moving away from lynching blacks as being acceptable, isn't meaningless rhetoric, nor were child labor laws or women suffrage, or fire codes in buildings. A just society changes, balances and moves forward for all of society.
 
Last edited:
We are talking about individual moral codes. All people have certain inalienable rights. How you have sex isn't one of them but freedom of religion and the right to moral conscience is.

Just so I'm clear, it's not that gays didn't or don't face significant discrimination that makes the comparison "shameful" but that they have no rights, so it's OK they faced oppressive discrimination, and have had through most of history including our own and in some countries face the death penalty, just for being gay?
 
Nowhere have I claimed the law is a good idea because of its Dem origin. That's merely a barrier against partisan hackery. I think the law is a good idea because I think it's a good idea.

OK, then it's a really lame barrier against "partisan hackery" because whether Schumer supported it in 1993 really has nothing to do with anyone's view of how it's interpreted today except for perhaps Chuck Schumer or the other 432 members of Congress who voted for it. Glad we got this straightened out!
 
Let's just see how it plays out. The law protects individuals from being compelled to perform acts contrary to their consciences. Seems laudable to me -- and constitutionally mandated, btw.

It depends, doesn't it? If your "conscience" tells you Jews are the devil and you want to run them out of town, and so you will refuse them service and otherwise make them unwelcome, I don't think laws that allow that are particularly "laudable." And they're clearly not always constitutionally 'mandated' - that also depends on what your conscience is telling you and who acts based on that affect....
 
****ing libertarian bull****. No it's not. Moving away from lynching blacks as being acceptable, isn't meaningless rhetoric, nor were child labor laws or women suffrage, or fire codes in buildings. A just society changes, balances and moves forward for all of society.

What is moving forward and what is not is entirely based on opinion and what someones goals for society are.
 
:lamo You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to forcing others to give up their constitutional rights afforded them to force what you think is just.

Because in doing so you make a mockery of the basis of our whole government. We all have inalienable rights and among those rights are religious freedoms. Gays, straights, blacks, whites, orange because of eating too many carrots, green because of too much broccoli, all share these rights. We would be wise to stand up for all people and not just a select few.

the state sanctioning kicking gay people out of a restaurant solely because they are gay is a mockery of humanity.
 
Just so I'm clear, it's not that gays didn't or don't face significant discrimination that makes the comparison "shameful" but that they have no rights, so it's OK they faced oppressive discrimination, and have had through most of history including our own and in some countries face the death penalty, just for being gay?
Well here a primer for you.....most folks think the 10% or less involved in same sex to be abnormal but the majority feel they deserve the same constitutional rights as others and should not be discriminated against. I agree. But at the same time they have no right to take away the constitutional rights of others that oppose their lifestyle on religious convictions especially when it involves any service pertaining to marriage.
 
This post will come in handy the next time a Democrat calls a Republican a hypocrite for not supporting the individual mandate because some now-retired Republican lawmakers supported it 20 years ago. Thanks. :thumbs: It will save me a lot of typing - just have to change a few names and a political party and the law name.

I don't recall ever making that argument, but if it's helpful to you, and what I say somehow proves some point about some other person's belief (you're wrong because Jasper said....!!! would seem odd....) then you're welcome, I guess...

The RFRA was intended to preserve the religious freedom of the Native Americans. Are you saying that it's a crime that it's being applied to non-Native American religions now?

No, I didn't say it was a crime, just that the current interpretation of it 1) couldn't have been anticipated by the supporters in 1993, and 2) what Chuck thought in 1993 is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything in 2015.
 
Well here a primer for you.....most folks think the 10% or less involved in same sex to be abnormal but the majority feel they deserve the same constitutional rights as others and should not be discriminated against. I agree. But at the same time they have no right to take away the constitutional rights of others that oppose their lifestyle on religious convictions especially when it involves any service pertaining to marriage.

And here's a primer for you...the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate commerce.
 
the state sanctioning kicking gay people out of a restaurant solely because they are gay is a mockery of humanity.

Please provide such a claim by link. Governor Pence would not of signed such a bill if it included such stipulations. Please produce......
 
And here's a primer for you...the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate commerce.

Yes the Commerce Clause that has become the catch all for all corrupt politicians. I for one am for a new admendment to the Constitution that defines the Commerce Clause true intent and not what asswipes have used it for to push through all sorts of things.
 
Waah, Open a private club and then you can deal with whatever group you want. If you have a business that caters to the public and you're reaping government benefits, you don't get to pick and choose who you want to do business with based on who that potential customer inherently is. You can refuse to do business if it's not conducive or doesn't apply to your business maybe. If somebody wants to hire Me to rehab their house and they want contemporary modern and My business only does vintage restoration. I can refuse to do business with them on those grounds. I can't refuse them service because they're Black.

Say Jones is an architect who has a small, one-man office in town and is known for the artistic, aesthetic quality of several residences he has designed in the area. One day as he is sketching design ideas, Rojer and Troy, two homosexual men, walk in and tell him they admire a house he did and want him to design one for them. But they have an aesthetic idea of their own they want him to follow.

On a trip to Tibet a couple years before, they explain, they had been quite fascinated with the way many houses there feature phallus-shaped forms in various parts of their design. The two tell Jones that as a gay couple, they like this phallus motif very much and want him to use it throughout the house he does for them. They confide that they plan to have some very sensuous all-male parties in their new house, and they make clear they want some of its design details to depict phalluses quite graphically, because they think that will lend to the erotic ambiance they want to create.

Not only does all this offend Jones's aesthetic and artistic sensibilities, but he is also a devout, fundamentalist Christian. As such, he believes homosexuality is immoral and an abomination that should be discouraged, rather than celebrated--let alone celebrated in his designs. He does not want these clients. Can he refuse them because they are homosexuals without violating his state's law, if it prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, and defines "public accommodation" to include any "business"?
 
Individuals are free to donate as they wish, regardless of their religion.

I wasn't getting into an argument on the right of people to contribute to prop 8, I was pointing out the significant influence of religion on the proposition, which I feel at this point is a sufficiently beaten and deceased equine.
 
Yes the Commerce Clause that has become the catch all for all corrupt politicians. I for one am for a new admendment to the Constitution that defines the Commerce Clause true intent and not what asswipes have used it for to push through all sorts of things.

Another primer for you...until you pass that amendment, the govt has the power to make discrimination illegal
 
And here's a primer for you...the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate commerce.

:lol: I was not aware business was listed in the commerce clause.
 
Another primer for you...until you pass that amendment, the govt has the power to make discrimination illegal

I thinks it's cute that you have to run to an obviously unfounded determination of government power by the Supreme Court to make your case.
 
Back
Top Bottom