• 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

The churches are having an influence on the government, isn't that power and influence?

I'm talking about financial influence to threaten or curry favor from religious leaders, not influence through the expression of personal opinions. As I said, their tax exempt status is not a conditional privilege requiring political neutrality, but a standard vital in maintaining and preserving the first amendment of the Constitution.
 
I'm talking about financial influence to threaten or curry favor from religious leaders, not influence through the expression of personal opinions. As I said, their tax exempt status is not a conditional privilege requiring political neutrality, but a standard vital in maintaining and preserving the first amendment of the Constitution.

Really? If religion is going to influence politics, churches that go about doing this need to be taxed, if we're supposed to be keeping them separate..

a) "In God We Trust" was printed on the money being in the 1950's. This motto would not pass the lemon test (government shall not promote any religion).
b) Although it shouldn't be anybody's business, politicians' religious beliefs are put in the spot light. For example, many claimed Obama is a Muslim and didn't want to vote for him because of that. Romney is a Mormon.
c) People are trying to throw out science and teach religion in our public schools. Religion has no place in these schools to brainwash our children. School is for learning and evolution is fact, not creationism or ID.
d) During holidays, there are posted signs of "keep Christ in Christmas" on public/government property. Besides being inaccurate, this will not pass the lemon test.
e) Politicians and others are using their religion as bases for laws such as gay marriage and abortion. No religion should be forced on everybody (freedom of religion).
 
Really? If religion is going to influence politics, churches that go about doing this need to be taxed, if we're supposed to be keeping them separate..

a) "In God We Trust" was printed on the money being in the 1950's. This motto would not pass the lemon test (government shall not promote any religion).
b) Although it shouldn't be anybody's business, politicians' religious beliefs are put in the spot light. For example, many claimed Obama is a Muslim and didn't want to vote for him because of that. Romney is a Mormon.
c) People are trying to throw out science and teach religion in our public schools. Religion has no place in these schools to brainwash our children. School is for learning and evolution is fact, not creationism or ID.
d) During holidays, there are posted signs of "keep Christ in Christmas" on public/government property. Besides being inaccurate, this will not pass the lemon test.
e) Politicians and others are using their religion as bases for laws such as gay marriage and abortion. No religion should be forced on everybody (freedom of religion).

OMG... I should have known better to try and have a reasonable, rational conversation with a person who is an unabashed communist. I feel silly for thinking that might not turn out like this.

I'm out.
 
OMG... I should have known better to try and have a reasonable, rational conversation with a person who is an unabashed communist. I feel silly for thinking that might not turn out like this.

I'm out.

We are having a reasonable conversation, I'm showing the influence religion has had, and continues to have on politics. Wait, because I am a communist, I am not rational? I'm getting tired of this one liner BS. :confused:
 
We are having a reasonable conversation, I'm showing the influence religion has had, and continues to have on politics. Wait, because I am a communist, I am not rational? I'm getting tired of this one liner BS. :confused:

Don't you get it? They're allowed to fling feces on you, but you're not allowed to point out how filthy their words are, let alone clean yourself off. What are you, some kind of rationalist? ;)
 
Don't you get it? They're allowed to fling feces on you, but you're not allowed to point out how filthy their words are, let alone clean yourself off. What are you, some kind of rationalist? ;)

I love this. I can't stand how people have been made to immediately dismiss and hate anything associated with communism without even attempting discussion. :)
 
It won't go to the SCOTUS first, if at all.. That's where the other unelected federal judges come into play.

You mean the ones appointed by the elected officials to deliver justice and protect the constitution? Sorry, but that is better than gerrymandering and pandering politicians who are about as trustworthy as gutter rats (and then I have to apologize to the rats because some of them are more morally upstanding than a lot of big politicians).
 
Churches being tax exempt was done for very good reasons. One of which I not only expected you to know, but to celebrate... It was to preserve the separation of religion and government, because with no financial dealings between the 2 of them, the government can't use their taxation power to destroy a particular church, nor can it use financial preference to curry favor, influence or buy religious support or endorsements.

All of which proves that religion is a protected class.

The fact that there's a "good reason" for doing so doesn't make religion any less protected.

In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically lists religion as one of its' protected classes.
 
same thing i call it when ANYBODY is assessed fines and find themselves locked in legal battles over breaking the law and or infringing on people rights

i call it stupid people choosing to break the law :shrug:

why would i call it anythign else unless i want to be dishonest

And what you said before is as follows:

SO again in fact I dont know one christian in real life affected NEGATIVELY by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws,

Is it your opinion that people are not negatively affected when they break the law?
 
Well, OK, but there are billions of people living in actual tyrannical regimes and they'd laugh if someone tried to claim that our experience is similar because businesses in the U.S. are forced to treat all customers equally, and with respect. You're trivializing the word IMO.
And we're trying to "nip it in the bud" before we join them
 
you also have the freedom and right to go to another country that affords you the right to discriminate in public accommodation commerce, if it means so much to you.
Or you could just go to sensible states like Indiana and others that protect religious liberties
 
and what would you do if that was the only 1 cake shop within 500 miles of you? or if all cake shops were owned and run by religious opponents of your life?
etc
Try Betty Crocker. Nobody is going to die if they don't get a cake
 
Business owners ought not to have to bend to every protected class. Especially ones that go against their personal faith.

This is a backlash against the actions of unelected Federal judges who over-ride the wishes of the majority of a states voters.

You do realize that is one of major functions of federal judges: to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority? Thus, overriding the wishes of the majority is not necessarily over-stepping; its doing his/her job.
 
The equal protection clause only applies to government. Perhaps you should read the clause you're referencing before using it as your argument.
A careful reading of the Constitution reveals that, in particular the Bill of Rights, details what government can't do to its citizens. Nothing about what citizens can or can't do to each other. The progressive concept is to use government as a weapon against the citizens to force behavior, precisely the opposite of the original Constitution
 
The way I see it, why would a gay person force a fundamentalist Christian bakery to make a cake for them anyway? Who knows what they will put in that cake if one forces them to serve them. Im sure there's plenty of other willing bakeshops that can accommodate their requests- and that way they wont have to worry about whats in those cakes. If a person does discriminate, let them be known throughout the whole community and let the market decide as to whether their business gets ruined because of their bigotry, dont let the government do that.

The reason is that the homosexual agenda has to be pushed until everyone is forced ito compliance
 
I don't think he's squirming at all. That's an honest down-the-middle answer. Any dog whistle is a product of your imagination. I know how much you want there to be a dog whistle.

It's a down the middle answer for a question that is "Yes" or "No." He's wanting to have it both ways - tell the anti-SSM community that they'll have a weapon to deny service to teh gays ("Yes"), and tell the rest of the country and the business community that the law is not a license to discriminate ("No"). It's one or the other. If it's the former, then there is no "faux" outrage on the part of us leftists. You've been saying it's the latter, "No", but yet defend Pence for his non-response. Like I keep saying, pick a side. There is no middle on that question.
 
Not as quickly and not as universally. And if their convictions are so solid, there should be no issue with them advertising them.

The better response is the one we saw earlier, the one where businesses advertise that they serve everyone. A freedom solution
 
That's his right to do so. And no it's him adding is two cents. [so to speak]

The truth is, we are working from an entirely different worldview paradigm than the non-believers, and our motives are different from what they think.

OK, but your individual motives aren't all that relevant to someone else. When you try to impose your values on those who don't share them, do you expect them to roll over? You (figuratively speaking) certainly aren't, but you want to complain when the LGBT community doesn't want to do business with those who believe they (LGBT) aren't worthy of certain rights available to you, and spends millions to make sure those rights are NOT extended to them?
 
are all residents of alaska serviced by more than 1 within 500 miles?
I can't see people of any sexual preference traveling 500 miles for a cake. Maybe that's why Alaskans like Sarah Palin are so adept at cooking their own confections
 
ok. so if there is a clause in the indiana law that if you are the ONLY bakery in 500 miles you can't descriminate, would you be ok with the law then?

Bakeries don't provide essential services so that suggestion is not worthy of consideration
 
And the law acts as I said it does - since you're wanting to quote facts.

The law does not yet identify bigotry and racism as a criminal offense.

Not in those explicit terms...but nevertheless it does. If you discriminate based on bigotry and/or racism you are violating the law. America has not always been fast to get it right. Unfortunately we lag behind a lot of the modern world when it comes to freedom and equality. But...America eventually gets it right and bigotry will always fail.
 
Exactly. Where are the entrepreneurial homosexual bakers, when there is so much unmet demand? Maybe states should have laws that require people to open businesses, wherever a government agency has decided there are too few of a given type to suit the convenience of homosexual residents.
There's an idea. Maybe every time a homosexual gets denied a wedding cake, the law should require him to open a bakery rather than sue the baker
 
I love this. I can't stand how people have been made to immediately dismiss and hate anything associated with communism without even attempting discussion. :)

omg I was just having this conversation with someone earlier today. I'll bet if you had a dollar for every time someone distorted the definition of "communism," well, you'd be one hell of a rich man!
 
omg I was just having this conversation with someone earlier today. I'll bet if you had a dollar for every time someone distorted the definition of "communism," well, you'd be one hell of a rich man!

Apparently the accepted definition is wrong :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom