• 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

No, you never said what right or rights anti-discrimination laws protect.

you asked me what rights those lose protect i told you many and told you equal rights and civil rights, if you want more than that youll have to figure it out :shrug:
not playing your game deflections will continue to fail
 
What rights? You have yet to say what rights are violated by not commencing in commerce with someone.

reposting this lie will never make it true
 
Where in the bible does it say you have to sell to everybody even if it violates your conscience?
it doesnt, good thing the bible doesnt run our country, that's exactly the point
peoples consciences dont matter to laws and rights
 
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. :)

No one has made immediately dismiss and hate anything associated with communism, any more than anyone has made me do that with Nazism. In both cases, I found the reasons for dismissing and hating them obvious on my own.
 
And what you said before is as follows:



Is it your opinion that people are not negatively affected when they break the law?


good thing i never said that
breaking the law, YES of course a person can be negatively affected in thier own subjective opinion based on their own CHOICE to break the law lol
fact still remains i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
 
No one has made immediately dismiss and hate anything associated with communism, any more than anyone has made me do that with Nazism. In both cases, I found the reasons for dismissing and hating them obvious on my own.

Really now? Nazism has actually been implemented, and we can see the disgusted, vile, horrid things it has caused. Communism has never been implemented, not even close, so I'd like to see your reason.
 
man....this country sometimes. if I was gay person and some old religious lady's cake shop wasn't comfortable with making me a cake, I'd just go somewhere else. But in this "sue them all", shrill, "everything offends me" America we now have RUN THE OLD LADY OUT OF BUSINESS of she refuses to bake a gay person a cake.

just step back and look at the lunacy on display here. all in the name of political correctness. even if we have to cannibalize the spirit of the country itself to do it.

I dont think people should just let others break the law and violate peoples rights . . . some will chose that and thats fine but many wont and thats also a good thing.
why is this the line, should people ignore robbery, rape, embezzlement, con artists, etc etc
now of course im not saying all those are equal nor am i suggesting you condone any of these im simply asking what other paths are there for these crimes and why should we let people break the law for one thing and not others?
while i "personally" agree you dont have to go sue happy and sue everybody, what other LEGAL course is there to fix these CRIMES.

I mean typically you can make a complaint or press charges and there will be fines or other penalties that could also do the same but Im not aware of other ways to do so.
If its a civil court issue people are at lest going to go to get reimbursed for thier own lawyer fees.
the spirit of the country IMO is equal rights.

Personally when i think "man this country" i think its sad that these bigots still exist in 2015 and that people are still dumb enough to think they get special treatment somehow and get to violate the rights of others.
 
Really now? Nazism has actually been implemented, and we can see the disgusted, vile, horrid things it has caused. Communism has never been implemented, not even close, so I'd like to see your reason.

When just trying to implement a system makes things much worse than before, repeatedly, I usually decide it's a bad idea to keep trying it.
 
you asked me what rights those lose protect i told you many and told you equal rights and civil rights, if you want more than that youll have to figure it out :shrug:
not playing your game deflections will continue to fail

Equal rights isn't a right by itself, and the term civil rights is meaningless without being defined.
 
1.)Equal rights isn't a right by itself, and the term civil rights is meaningless without being defined.
never claimed it was :shrug: please stick to what is actually said
2.)you are welcome to that opinion but its meanignless to me :shrug:
keep trying, more fails of those types of deflections will simply follow lmao
 
the solution to all of this is so very simply . . dont choose to break the law :shrug:

if you run a business simply dont CHOOSE to be a criminal and break the law and or infringe on the factual rights of others. Dont be an moron and think you get special treatment and are above the law because of your feelings.

WE ALL must play by the same rules, theres no special treatment.

Ill keep repeating it, the best part of things like this is in the end it will do nothing more then HELP equal rights just like bannings did and just like bigotry and discrimination based on other BS reasons before it do also. Sweet irony.
 
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.

Sorry, but your faux outrage is just as empty now as before. There's no problem here.
 
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.

[h=2]UVA Law Prof Who Supports Gay Marriage Explains Why He Supports Indiana's Religious Freedom Law[/h]9:32 PM, Mar 29, 2015 • By JOHN MCCORMACKDouglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, writes in an email:

Read more...
 
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.


[h=2]Indiana Governor: This Is the Same Religious Freedom Law Obama Voted for in Illinois[/h][h=3]White House doesn't dispute it.[/h]10:21 AM, Mar 29, 2015 • By JOHN MCCORMACKIn an appearance on ABC's This Week, Indiana governor Mike Pence defended his state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act by noting that Barack Obama had voted for the same law as an Illinois state senator.

Read more...
 
I heard someone on one of the Sunday morning political shows say this law will be like the early 60's in the south, where you see signs on store front windows saying "We don't serve 'whoever'" (she was alluding to black people of course) and without realizing it, she exposed the flaw in her argument against the new law.

A baker for example, refusing to create/provide a cake for a gay wedding because gay marriage violates their religious beliefs, isn't discrimination and it's well within their rights to refuse to do so... However, that same baker refusing to serve gay people period, because homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, is unjustified discrimination in my view.

The difference between the 2 is clear.. Not wanting to take part in, or provide services for, an event (gay marriage) that violates the bakers religious beliefs, is in my view perfectly justified... However, serving gay people in general who are there for example just to buy a cake for general consumption, isn't violating the bakers religious beliefs, because selling goods to gay people doesn't facilitate the gay lifestyle, nor does it translate into an endorsement of homosexuality... Therefore, if the baker refuses to serve gay people in general, that is discrimination against gay people and it just flat out wrong.

From what I gather, this law isn't designed to allow businesses to freely discriminate against various groups of people they don't like or disagree with, but to protect them from being forced to facilitate or participate in, an event or activity that truly violates or compromises their religious principals and beliefs. It's kind of like being a second amendment advocate that owns a gun shop, who overhears someone on the phone saying they wanted to shoot one of their neighbors, and then refusing to sell them a revolver 5 minutes later. It comes down to a persons morals and beliefs, and as long as we aren't talking about a life or death situations, nobody should be forced to have to violate either of them in order to make a living.

i disagree 100% saying they are different. WE ALL must play by the same rule not get special treatment. Im a Christian and at no time would i be stupid enough to think i get special treatment because of my religion. Not to mention theres NOTHING in my religion that says I have to open up a business and not provide service to others that disagree with me and if i do im a sinner lol

so you think refusing gay service at a bakery is bad and NOT with in reason
but refusing a wedding cake to gays (even though they give it to everybody else including other religions or non religious weddings which is completely hypocritical) is ok and with in reason of religious freedom

id like to know whats that is based on?

also what if the person owns apartments instead?
 
I dont think people should just let others break the law and violate peoples rights . . . some will chose that and thats fine but many wont and thats also a good thing.
why is this the line, should people ignore robbery, rape, embezzlement, con artists, etc etc
now of course im not saying all those are equal nor am i suggesting you condone any of these im simply asking what other paths are there for these crimes and why should we let people break the law for one thing and not others?
while i "personally" agree you dont have to go sue happy and sue everybody, what other LEGAL course is there to fix these CRIMES.

I mean typically you can make a complaint or press charges and there will be fines or other penalties that could also do the same but Im not aware of other ways to do so.
If its a civil court issue people are at lest going to go to get reimbursed for thier own lawyer fees.
the spirit of the country IMO is equal rights.

Personally when i think "man this country" i think its sad that these bigots still exist in 2015 and that people are still dumb enough to think they get special treatment somehow and get to violate the rights of others.

The proponents of the homosexual agenda are free to sue under state public accommodations laws. They're free to lose, too, when those laws as applied violate a person's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has already held in at least two cases that a state public accommodations law did just that. This is a free country--no one can be forced by law to express his approval of homosexuality when he believes it is immoral and unacceptable.

That is just why the organizers of the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade, which was a public accommodation under state law, did not have to let a homosexual group take part in the parade. That would in effect have amounted to a government-compelled endorsement of that group's views about Irish-Americans, which the organizers did not agree with. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, and the Court has made very clear that includes the freedom not to speak--not to be compelled to express or endorse views you do not agree with.

I think the same principle applies to the wedding photographer in the Elane case in New Mexico. The state supreme court got the decision wrong. She was not discriminating against homosexuals--she would gladly have taken other photos of the lesbian who sued her. But being forced by law to photograph the woman's homosexual wedding amounted to the state government compelling her to celebrate the event in her creatively arranged photographs--to make a personal expression, in artistic form--of a view she disagrees with. It's a short step from that to forcing a painter who considers homosexuality immoral to depict two homosexual clients in an erotically suggestive embrace, on the ground that because he occasionally sells a portrait he is a "business," and therefore a public accommodation.
 
The proponents of the homosexual agenda are free to sue under state public accommodations laws. They're free to lose, too, when those laws as applied violate a person's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has already held in at least two cases that a state public accommodations law did just that. This is a free country--no one can be forced by law to express his approval of homosexuality when he believes it is immoral and unacceptable.

That is just why the organizers of the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade, which was a public accommodation under state law, did not have to let a homosexual group take part in the parade. That would in effect have amounted to a government-compelled endorsement of that group's views about Irish-Americans, which the organizers did not agree with. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, and the Court has made very clear that includes the freedom not to speak--not to be compelled to express or endorse views you do not agree with.

I think the same principle applies to the wedding photographer in the Elane case in New Mexico. The state supreme court got the decision wrong. She was not discriminating against homosexuals--she would gladly have taken other photos of the lesbian who sued her. But being forced by law to photograph the woman's homosexual wedding amounted to the state government compelling her to celebrate the event in her creatively arranged photographs--to make a personal expression, in artistic form, of a view she disagrees with. It's a short step from that to forcing a painter who considers homosexuality immoral to depict two homosexual clients in an erotically suggestive embrace, on the ground that because he occasionally sells a portrait he is a "business," and therefore a public accommodation.

"The proponents of the homosexual agenda" :doh
 
1.)The proponents of the homosexual agenda are free to sue under state public accommodations laws. They're free to lose, too, when those laws as applied violate a person's constitutional rights.
2.) The Supreme Court has already held in at least two cases that a state public accommodations law did just that. This is a free country--no one can be forced by law to express his approval of homosexuality when he believes it is immoral and unacceptable.
3.)That is just why the organizers of the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade, which was a public accommodation under state law, did not have to let a homosexual group take part in the parade. That would in effect have amounted to a government-compelled endorsement of that group's views about Irish-Americans, which the organizers did not agree with. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, and the Court has made very clear that includes the freedom not to speak--not to be compelled to express or endorse views you do not agree with.
4.)
I think the same principle applies to the wedding photographer in the Elane case in New Mexico. The state supreme court got the decision wrong. She was not discriminating against homosexuals--she would gladly have taken other photos of the lesbian who sued her. But being forced by law to photograph the woman's homosexual wedding amounted to the state government compelling her to celebrate the event in her creatively arranged photographs--to make a personal expression, in artistic form, of a view she disagrees with. It's a short step from that to forcing a painter who considers homosexuality immoral to depict two homosexual clients in an erotically suggestive embrace, on the ground that because he occasionally sells a portrait he is a "business," and therefore a public accommodation.

1.) lmao as soon as i hear this i always laugh my ass off. What is the homosexual agenda? please tell us what it factually is.
also in the things that over step and try to give americans special tretment will fail and be removed, im all fine for protecting rights, just not special treatment which SOME religious people disgustingly want.
2.) i agree good thing nobody antidscrimaitnion laws and equal rights and civil rights dont "force acceptance" another repeated and failed strawman. Saying its forced acceptance is always a false and dishonest statement.
3.) im fine with that decision as its nothing like this on any level lol
4.) i understand thats what you think but its simply wrong. She in fact was discriminating against gays just like the court case says she was. No gay in the wedding no discrimination. If you do WEDDING pics then you do wedding pics period. especially if the other wedding pics have been for other religions, nonreligious weddings and remarriages . . all things that could be loosely argued just as much as gay weddings as being wrong based on religion. But magical the line is drawn at GAY which shows the hypocrisy and bigotry.

if the owner wanted to do things that were just subjectively based on heir religion they are free to do so but they dont get to have a public accommodation shop and serve OTHER things that violate the religion and its ok but then magically claim this thing is really wrong and not ok. Its a crock and complete BS.

THis is why the laws are like they are because otherwise youll just have people making crap up like they are already doing. THe law should treat us all the same not special treatment for come people that can just make things up.

the easy question that shows its a HORRIBLE idea to give special treatment is that many Christian dont see an issue at all with servicing gays or feel it violates thier religion that has ZERO to do with a bakery . .

so that easy question is "who gets to determine what is a violation of thier religious feelings and why and when its acceptable?
 
good thing i never said that
breaking the law, YES of course a person can be negatively affected in thier own subjective opinion based on their own CHOICE to break the law lol
fact still remains i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
I quoted you verbatim, so yes, you did say it
 
I quoted you verbatim, so yes, you did say it

again YOUR mistake i never said CRIMINALS werent punished by breaking the law lol which is what i was referring too
what i never said is that "Is it your opinion that people are not negatively affected when they break the law?"

thats what i was answering
i stand my my actual statment this is why i repeated it, even though you conveniently left it out of my qoute so ill say it AGAIN

fact still remains i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws

none, zero, nota
 
Last edited:
again YOUR mistake i never said CRIMINALS werent punished by breaking the law lol which is what i was referring too
what i never said is that "Is it your opinion that people are not negatively affected when they break the law?"

thats what i was answering
i stand my my actual statment this is why i repeated it, even though you conveniently left it out of my qoute so ill say it AGAIN

fact still remains i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws

none, zero, nota
Then I'll repeat my question. What do you call it when merchants are dragged into court, expensive legal proceedings by the way, and fined for not serving homosexuals that want products and services for their weddings? Is that not being negatively affected?
 
Back
Top Bottom