• 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

I'll chalk one up for another rightwinger who doesn't understand what bigotry is about
Bigotry of forcing people to violate their personal beliefs is bigotry regardless of what some left wingers may think.
 
*yawn*

Yeah, because slaves were paid for their services and owned their own businesses. :roll:
Slaves got free room and board and medical care. That could be considered compensation for their labor, albeit forced labor as is being proposed against Christians and others
 
*yawn*

Yeah, because slaves were paid for their services and owned their own businesses. :roll:
Slaves got free room and board and medical care. That could be considered compensation for their labor, albeit forced labor as is being proposed against Christians and others
 
Which they agreed was satisfactory compensation :roll:
Some did, I'm sure most didn't. But good point. When someone refuses to provide a product or service it's because the compensation isn't satisfactory
 
Some did, I'm sure most didn't. But good point. When someone refuses to provide a product or service it's because the compensation isn't satisfactory

Inadequate compensation is a valid reason for refusing service and has nothing to do with religion.

Not your decision

The laws decision.
 
There are laws already in place that do not permit people kicking people out of work over sexual orientation. You know as a woman I spent a good part of my working life fighting for the rights of women. Whether it be equal pay or time off during pregnancies/births. One species had to be the one to cook it in the oven for nine months. That shouldn't be held against her. Let me tell ya from experience by 11:00 AM if you didn't feed the child or pump, that breast milk would shoot across the room if it were allowed to. It is so uncomfortable, painful and embarrassing when your breasts start to leak soaking through pads and wetting your garments. My suggestions for a place for nursing moms to pump was ignored when I needed it but later on the company did provide a curtained area for moms who needed to pump during their lunch hour in the gym. In the same breath, I support religious rights. If a person finds same sex sinful they should be allowed to hold that belief whether in private or in the public square and not be forced by law to violate those beliefs. But at the same time support all citizens of this country regardless of race, gender, religion etc. the basic inalienable rights we all possess. And when you deny a man the right to his moral conscience you are stepping on his liberties.

they can find homosexuality as sinful as they want, but if they are a business open to the public, they shouldn't be allowed to deny service to a homosexual customer just because he or she is homosexual any more than they should be allowed to do so based on race or gender.
 
Corinthians 14:34

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

And in your ignorance quote a Scripture and have no clue to its substance. In the days of Corinth in Greek culture, it was rare that wives of men would be together in a public place together let alone a place of worship. You see they seen their women as home-bound caring for their children. Only the male was permitted such latitude in socializing. In Christianity the barriers in society were broken and the women were encouraged to attend the services with their mates. However, they did not know how to act and during the services would talk and ask questions and socialize with others around them. It disrupted the service hence the remarks from the Apostle Paul. But it is always a favorite Scripture for folks like you to pull out of context .
 
Discrimination of groups of people is despicable, and what is being done here is not "freedom of speech" it is discrimination and separation of the community.
 
Last edited:
U.S. Law states that public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public.
No, US Law states that public accommodations are specifically defined as restaurants, theatres, hotels, and gas stations.
 
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.

Again, the problem is some supporters who are vocal and powerful opponents of SSM were cheering the passage of this bill and those like it in other states, and their rhetoric was focused on how it would protect people from teh gays. They specifically say the law would allow some businesses to discriminate against (deny services to) homosexuals getting married - specifically mentioned were photographers, florists and bakers. That's what the supporters have claimed. If businesses can deny services to gay weddings, what else is permitted under this law? Can restaurants refuse their services, hotels, can a lessor deny apartments to gay couples? Can a business deny spousal benefits to a legally married but same sex couple?

I've read a legal analysis signed by 16 scholars who say the bill will do no such thing - that anti-discrimination laws will withstand RFRA challenges - and they support the legislation.

Another analysis by 30 legal scholars opposes the bill for a variety of reasons, among them that concludes that the law will likely at least provide what businesses believe is a license to discriminate, and that a flood of litigation is likely.

I don't know the answer, but if we believe some proponents that the bill is an important way to "protect" some people and businesses from "supporters of homosexual marriage" it is a license for discrimination in some circumstances that aren't well defined or understood. Pence and others defending it say it will do no such thing. So at the signing ceremony you've got people who are making conflicting claims both cheering the same law. Maybe the anti-SSM folks are just playing to the base and that part of it is all politics and baseless rhetoric, but then you can't blame those on the other side for taking those claims at face value and responding to them. And it seems wise to be concerned when groups working hard to oppose SSM are behind these efforts and are clapping as the bill is signed into law.
 
they can find homosexuality as sinful as they want, but if they are a business open to the public, they shouldn't be allowed to deny service to a homosexual customer just because he or she is homosexual any more than they should be allowed to do so based on race or gender.

Lets break this down to the basics. When you approach someone and they say no to trade the answer is no. The answer is not, ok, so I will go get the government to force you to trade with me. This isn't really all that hard to understand.
 
Just for the record, the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, not simply the freedom to worship

selling someone a hamburger isn't exercising religion. you still shouldn't be able to kick a gay person out of your business just for being gay.
 
And in your ignorance quote a Scripture and have no clue to its substance. In the days of Corinth in Greek culture, it was rare that wives of men would be together in a public place together let alone a place of worship. You see they seen their women as home-bound caring for their children. Only the male was permitted such latitude in socializing. In Christianity the barriers in society were broken and the women were encouraged to attend the services with their mates. However, they did not know how to act and during the services would talk and ask questions and socialize with others around them. It disrupted the service hence the remarks from the Apostle Paul. But it is always a favorite Scripture for folks like you to pull out of context .

Fine ignore the law makes no difference to me.
 
No, US Law states that public accommodations are specifically defined as restaurants, theatres, hotels, and gas stations.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181
(7) Public accommodation
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.
 
selling someone a hamburger isn't exercising religion. you still shouldn't be able to kick a gay person out of your business just for being gay.

Why? It's my property and I want them to leave. Why shouldn't I be able to kick them out?
 
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.

I'm not sure the "most folks" statement is true. And I don't know what limits there would be on "any service pertaining to marriage." Are you talking about some large or small participation in the marriage ceremony, or in providing benefits to SS couples (such as benefits) same as straight couples.

Furthermore, it's not at all clear that the law would allow for a photographer to deny her services to a same sex marriage. Those saying the law isn't a license to discriminate deny this, and in some cases specifically. But if they're wrong and the law would allow for that photographer/baker/florist/hotel/restaurant/public wedding chapel (i.e. not a church) to deny services then why stop there, or what would limit the law to just wedding ceremonies and not an apartment manager who doesn't believe in homosexual cohabitation since sodomy is a sin?

I guess I'm not really following the thread of this conversation.
 
they can find homosexuality as sinful as they want, but if they are a business open to the public, they shouldn't be allowed to deny service to a homosexual customer just because he or she is homosexual any more than they should be allowed to do so based on race or gender.

But Helix services pertaining to weddings often requires a person to use their skill to create something in a business that many believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. That the very thought of such a reunion under their God is inspirational and Holy. Then you expect them to create something with their own hands that violates what they believe for another because they want it? That isn't fair. If a cake decorator in good conscience refuses a wedding cake which is the one cake that creates the greatest revenue for them because it violates their moral conscience what does that tell you? You know this new law that Pence just signed would not have been necessary if gay activists would have respected the religious rights of others Now that's something to ponder.
 
U.S. Law states that public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public.
No, US Law states that public accommodations are specifically defined as restaurants, theatres, hotels, and gas stations.

Actually the definition of "Public Accommodation" varies by jurisdiction so there can be differences between the Federal definition and among the various states.

Since this thread is about Indiana, here is their definition:

IC 22-9-1-3
Definitions
(m) "Public accommodation" means any establishment that caters or offers its services or facilities or goods to the general public.​


Indiana Code 22-9-1

>>>>
 
Back
Top Bottom