• 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

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"?

The design of the house can be seen as an expression of his aesthetic, so he could refuse to design such a house because it is not his aesthetic.

Design style is the architects "stock in trade" and it is within their rights to refuse to design a house that is not consistent with their own aesthetic.
 
i'll add that to the list.

“to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Notice anything missing?
 
Another primer for you...until you pass that amendment, the govt has the power to make discrimination illegal
Another primer for you, there are 591 days till the next election. Cheers!
 
Because of such cases like Elane Photography it has compelled at least 30 states to tighten their laws in regard to such superfluous cases to ward off the wolves that are ready and willing to deny the basic rights of others in the name of their cause. Rather selfish when you boil it all down.

I don't view attempts by government to infringe a person's freedom of speech as superfluous. And if there was any wolf who was ready and willing to use a constitutionally dubious law to deny another person this basic right in the name of her cause, it was the woman who forced Elaine to celebrate her homosexual wedding in photographs. Rather selfish of this lesbian when you boil it all down.

Faux liberals have as much contempt for the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as they do for the right guaranteed by the Second.
 
Yes, 591 days until we elect another dem president.

Really? after all this hopelessness and no change left in the pockets of millions you have confidence that a Dem will win the presidency? Wow, you are a dreamer. :lamo Most folks I talk to who voted for Obama are saying he was one big ass mistake. They don't much care for his hopelessness and no change. Their concerns are all over the place, some with the incompetence of foreign affairs. Others aren't real happy with the attack on religious freedoms. I have friends of many colors and none of them are real thrilled with that one. I love my liberal friends and respect them even more when they admit their choice was a wrong one. Cheers!
 
I don't view attempts by government to infringe a person's freedom of speech as superfluous. And if there was any wolf who was ready and willing to use a constitutionally dubious law to deny another person this basic right in the name of her cause, it was the woman who forced Elaine to celebrate her homosexual wedding in photographs. Rather selfish of this lesbian when you boil it all down.

Faux liberals have as much contempt for the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as they do for the right guaranteed by the Second.

The photographer was not forced to celebrate anything, and it's the right wingers who have contempt for the 1st Amend.
 
Really? after all this hopelessness and no change left in the pockets of millions you have confidence that a Dem will win the presidency? Wow, you are a dreamer. :lamo Most folks I talk to who voted for Obama are saying he was one big ass mistake. They don't much care for his hopelessness and no change. Their concerns are all over the place, some with the incompetence of foreign affairs. Others aren't real happy with the attack on religious freedoms. I have friends of many colors and none of them are real thrilled with that one. I love my liberal friends and respect them even more when they admit their choice was a wrong one. Cheers!

Your attempt to derail this into a discussion about the election is a FAIL
 
Your attempt to derail this into a discussion about the election is a FAIL

You started sugar and I finished it. Good evening.....
 
LOL, he was hounded into resigning because he supported (contributed money in support of) a constitutional amendment to deny the benefits of marriage to homosexuals and effectively impose his view of "marriage" onto the entire state, permanently, while heading an organization full of those whose rights he was gleefully attempting to permanently limit.

You mean he was persecuted for his beliefs. Thank you for confirming my point; mere criticism or discrimination is not sufficient to claim persecution. "Persecution only occurs when someone repeatedly harasses or punishes another in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; to make someone suffer because of their belief. You know, like a founder of Mozilla "getting whacked (hounded into resigning) by the gay mafia" (Bill Mahr) .".


And there is a world of difference between a personal view of marriage - don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married! - and contributing money to an effort that would impose his personal view on everyone else. It's the difference between being personally against keeping guns at home, and supporting a law that would ban guns.
A "world of difference" for whom, compared to what? We all have personal and privately held views (that is as true of the people of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union as it is here) but no one would suggest that their dissidents should have been persecuted merely because they wanted to "impose" their view of a free society on others.

So perhaps what you actually mean is that 'it is different' because anyone who is not willing to extend the "right" of marriage to same sex couples is supporting the continued denial of a liberty right to a group; and anyone who says or does anything to politically support and deny a liberty should be persecuted and driven from their jobs? Really?

If so, then in your "moral" and "tolerant" world more than half the voters who supported and actually voted for Proposition 8 should also be targets of persecution, and hounded from employment...correct? Just as anyone who supports anything less than pro-choice should be persecuted and hounded from their employment, yes? And for some let us not forget the Communists and the Jews, they too need to be persecuted and driven from employment, (Oh wait, we have been here before, have we not?).

Would a gun maker in Texas support a CEO who contributed money to a constitutional amendment to ban guns? Of course not. Would that gun maker support a CEO who made a personal decision to not own guns or keep them in his home? Why not, especially if that person didn't publicly advertise his personal choice.

You offer us a too obvious nonsensical analogy because...? The actual question is "would a software maker in California employ a founder and CEO who privately donated money to a Constitutional amendment that has NOTHING to do with their software products (banned or otherwise)? Unless you think that Mozilla's real business purpose is to politically advance gay marriage rights, your analogy is more than daft - its bizarre. (And, by the way, 'that hounded person' in Mozilla did not 'publicly advertise' his personal view. It was private until the self-appointed 'gay brownshirts' researched, targeted, publicized, and then persecuted a private person.

A reminder - we have been here before. Salem, the Hollywood 10, Red Channels, and black lists (employment persecution) are very familiar theme to those of us who have learned from history. And to those who remain historically benighted, and would enjoy a rebirth of such persecution, I can think of nothing more appropriate than to suggest they (you) read about another who held similar views: Senator Joseph McCarthy.

And when they are hunting for todays "communists" (traditional marriage supporters) before these folk find a private citizen who has "sinned", expose and publicly denounce their prior affiliation, and then destroy them I hope someone whispers in their the words of Joseph Welch:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Will they? I think not.
 
Last edited:
I don't view attempts by government to infringe a person's freedom of speech .

Do you have freedom of speech when you are on your employer's time? The time your employer paid for.
 
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 ?

They're not going to lose anything because this law is replicated in many states, and follows the federal statute.
 
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....

The behavior you describe would be unlawful under both Indiana and federal statutes.
 
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.

OK. That point was never disputed.
 
sexual orientation isn't covered by Indiana's state anti-discrimination laws.

Should LGBT Hoosiers Be Protected From Discrimination? | News - Indiana Public Media

this particular bill was to protect religious freedoms much like 30 state governors have signed into law after the fiasco over cake decorators, florists and photographers were ripped in federal courts mainly due to the lack of protection at the state level. . Are you against religious freedoms? I read it and it had nothing in it that discriminated against anyone.. So what's the beef?
 
sexual orientation isn't covered by Indiana's state anti-discrimination laws.

Should LGBT Hoosiers Be Protected From Discrimination? | News - Indiana Public Media


From your link and this is the point. There is not a single case in any state with RFRA of discrimination against any LGBT person being upheld.

"Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, says courts will take care of any discrimination concerns RFRA’s opponents might have:
“I think you can look nationally and not find a circumstance where a state that has a RFRA standard and the federal law have upheld a discriminatory action against an LGBT group,” Bosma says."
 
That's too bad. Nobody should have the right to demand someone else's labor. That isn't a free society.

And what about the person denied access to society simply because someone doesn't like who they are and not because of their character?

What sort of free society do they live in knowing that they stand an incredible likelihood being denied access to the basic structures that you people associate with freedom and liberty?

Libertarians understand only a small portion of what freedom actually means. Their obliviousness to culture only ensures that minorities (race, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation) who are not liked by culture will be second class citizens at best.
 
Last edited:
The design of the house can be seen as an expression of his aesthetic, so he could refuse to design such a house because it is not his aesthetic.

Design style is the architects "stock in trade" and it is within their rights to refuse to design a house that is not consistent with their own aesthetic.

I see. Architects are engaging in expressive speech through their work, but photographers are not. When they are forced by law to celebrate an event they disapprove of, government is not unconstitutionally compelling them to engage in certain speech against their will.

Say there is a group of openly homosexual men who have a fetish for things associated with Nazism. They want to have a party, with a swastika-bedizened cake and everyone dressed in SS caps, uniforms--or at least parts of uniforms--and boots. Just to add to the fun, they want to hire Cohen, an observant Jew who is a photographer in town, to take photographs to commemorate the event. They tell him they are homosexuals and want the photos to show them in embraces and in other erotically suggestive poses. This man does the usual wedding and bar mitzvah photographs, but he also has had a number of his photos of human figures exhibited in galleries. Although Cohen does not have as low an opinion of homosexuals as of Nazis, he considers homosexuality immoral and wants no part of celebrating it in pictures. But since photographs are not a form of aesthetic expression like architecture, and because under the state law photography studios qualify as public accommodations, he cannot refuse this job. Is that what you would say?
 
this particular bill was to protect religious freedoms much like 30 state governors have signed into law after the fiasco over cake decorators, florists and photographers were ripped in federal courts mainly due to the lack of protection at the state level. . Are you against religious freedoms? I read it and it had nothing in it that discriminated against anyone.. So what's the beef?

i am not against the rights of any religious person to worship. i am against the practice of using that faith to discriminate against others in a place of business. in other words, i don't want businesses kicking my gay friends or relatives out. that is too close to what routinely happened to non-white races before the civil rights movement, and it makes my state look bad. it has the potential to have a significantly negative economic impact, too, and i work here.
 
And what about the person denied access to society simply because someone doesn't like who they are and not because of their character?

Denied access to society? How are they denied access to society? You do know what society is right?
 
this particular bill was to protect religious freedoms much like 30 state governors have signed into law after the fiasco over cake decorators, florists and photographers were ripped in federal courts mainly due to the lack of protection at the state level. . Are you against religious freedoms? I read it and it had nothing in it that discriminated against anyone.. So what's the beef?

I'm against discrimination in places of public accommodation. If you want to discriminate start a club for heterosexuals only.
 
I'm against discrimination in places of public accommodation. If you want to discriminate start a club for heterosexuals only.

You guys act like you have a right to be a member of all clubs. Just sayin'..
 
I'm against discrimination in places of public accommodation. If you want to discriminate start a club for heterosexuals only.
I'm against any discrimination that would deny any citizen constitutional right to moral conscience. To me that is the epitome of stealing a man's soul. Have a nice day.
 
Back
Top Bottom