• 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

Your preferences don't matter. Not everyone is like you. The supporters of the Indiana law are proud to have opinions 180 degrees different than you. It's they, the proudly anti-SSM/gay evangelicals, the LGBT is worried about, not socially liberal libertarian types.

Should it be legal for an employer to have a DADT employment policy? It's a simple question.

And what you have to recognize is you may disagree with the anti-SSM/gay crowd, but you're supporting policies they support for the purpose of discriminating against LBGT - that's what they tell us their goal is.

My preferences matter to me. And you're asking me a legal question about what a business should have - I'm not a lawyer. I know next to nothing about DADT and what's in it.

But one more time - people can and do get let go from their jobs all the time. I don't know that being let go because you're gay is any more upsetting than being let go because your boss likes Mary or Henry better than you.

Like I said, I support the LGBT advancing their cause just as I do about supporting people advancing any cause that's important to them. We all have causes that are dear to us.
 
Really? Unless you are clairvoyant, you have no idea where I borrowed it from. I do not even know what that group is, although from your description I would guess it is made up of statist drones.

Actually, it's made up of ignorant and bigoted conservative morons. They "coined" the term in the late 70's/early 80's by creating lies around what THEY claimed the homosexual agenda was.

I saw the phrase in Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, as I recall. He was specifically talking about several members of the Court that he believed had signed onto the homosexual agenda, and I think he is exactly right about that. And Justice Kennedy seems to have signed on very enthusiastically.

Scalia didn't know what he was talking about.
 
You left out Section 9:

"Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been
substantiallyburdened, or islikely tobe substantiallyburdened,by
a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending
violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other
governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."​


This provides that religious beliefs (as defined earlier) are a valid defense in claims between two persons (which also previously defined includes business entities). In plan English that means if a Muslim cab driver refused service to a blind person because they have a service dog (and yes that has happened, Minnesota Cab Driver case) , the owner can claim a religious objection to Jews and under this law it is a legal defense.


https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf

>>>>

You shouldn't read too much into that. Simply having a legal defense does not a winner make. It never has been that way. The best way to understand this is to look at civil law. There are a myriad of legal defenses for almost any accusation, but you must still win by a showing of a preponderance of the evidence. Not the same burden as beyond all reasonable doubt, and in this sense, winning a civil battle is significantly easier than winning a criminal complaint against you. So, as an example and in keeping with the context on this issue, I'm a bakery and told my gay customer I couldn't in all conscience serve him and that he should go down the road to get his cake made. He gets all butt hurt and decides to sue me. All the gay guy has to do is file a petition, there is no prosecutorial discretion of anything. The county clerk just takes your complaint, files it, sends you a verified complaint and it is up to the gay guy to serve the bakery. He serves the bakery and the bakery has between 20/30 days to answer. It is in the answer where the bakery owner answers to each and every allegation made by the gay guy. He can answer in several ways. That he admits to the allegation, that he denies the allegation, or that there isn't enough information to form a belief on the allegation. After the answer, the bakery owner would submit supporting papers in the form of an affidavit (Which provides more details and defenses of allegations admitted to), and a memorandum of law.

In this case, the memorandum of law would be the Indiana law. And in his answer and supporting affidavit, any allegations admitted to, would add details such as he could not serve the gay guy because of X, Y, and Z.. It is then up to a judge and or jury to find bakery owner guilty, or not guilty. The burden however, shifts frequently in civil matters, and unlike criminal proceedings where the prosecution must prove its case, in civil matters, each party that makes a prima facie showing will shift the burden on the opposing party until at some point, a jury or a judge will side with one of the parties to the suit.

Tim-
 
No hyperbole about it. Every one of my questions was serious. Nothing is stopping anyone who thinks it's right to rent to homosexuals from doing just that. The more relevant question is whether people who do not want to rent to them in buildings with only a few units, where freedom of association and the right to privacy come into play, can be forced to do it by law.

Apartments and other rental housing are not usually considered public accommodations. But these same issues have been raised by state public accommodations laws. And it is those laws that the RFRA which is the topic of this thread apparently was meant to create a religious-belief exception to.

RFRA's are meant to protect the right to free exercise, which is one more part of the First Amendment, along with the freedoms of speech and association, that public accommodations laws which make sexual preference a protected category may run up against.

Maybe someone else will want to give some thought to the questions I posed.

No, all your questions were hyperbolic and didn't actually address what you were responding to. YOU created the argument that Grim was making because his actual argument didn't seem to suit you.
 
My preferences matter to me. And you're asking me a legal question about what a business should have - I'm not a lawyer. I know next to nothing about DADT and what's in it.

Above you said this discussion was about more than than what the law is, and includes what we think the law should be. Should it be legal for a private business to have a DADT type policy. They will hire you if you're in the closet, and will fire you if they find out you're gay, for no reason other than you're gay.

But one more time - people can and do get let go from their jobs all the time. I don't know that being let go because you're gay is any more upsetting than being let go because your boss likes Mary or Henry better than you.

Goodness, I really cannot figure out why you often go to great lengths to avoid the point than address it and have an honest debate.
 
No, all your questions were hyperbolic and didn't actually address what you were responding to. YOU created the argument that Grim was making because his actual argument didn't seem to suit you.

matches points were very clear to us who are up to speed with the macro issues of this ...
 
That isn't what this is about and you should really be able to see thru a politician's lies and that of the FRC, who stood behind the governor as signed the law. Try reading the bill for one. It's impossibly broad. All it says is "burdens religious beliefs." That can be freaking anything, including medical treatment, and it's leaving the courts to act as mind readers in a case by case basis.

This is about hatred of LGBT, period. The only diff is they aren't able to be *quite* as transparent about it as those very same pulpits were in the past

"SB 101 will help protect individuals, Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages and those supporting government recognition and approval of gender identity (male cross-dressers)."

Notice no mention of protection for other religions or of other targeted groups. I guess you must be a fan of repealing the civil rights act too. I mean at least then you're consistent

Oh and it clearly violates "equal protection" and roper v evans, public accommodation laws, as well as anti discrimination laws in 12 counties

If nothing else, i hope this circus and massive disinvestment dissuades other states from attempting the same

I don't disagree with you. The law is a smokescreen for attacks on the LGBT community. If it wasn't, it's broadness would address other groups, such as atheists for example. The actual legal intent of such a law, however, is not really problematic, and people can choose to associate with whomever they want. I support businesses having the right to choose who they will serve for whatever reason. I also support free speech and freedom of the press, and I would encourage people to take out full page ads in newspapers identifying businesses who choose not to serve certain groups of people.
 
matches points were very clear to us who are up to speed with the macro issues of this ...

His points were completely irrelevant to the post of which he was responding, and misrepresented Grim's position.
 
Being elected does not mean they are better judges, in fact I think they are possibly even (or should I say most likely) better than chosen judges because they do not have to pander to the special interests and the people who bankroll their elections. Judges should not be elected IMHO, they should uphold the law, not be in the pockets of the biggest political sponsors or political parties. Judges need to be totally independent.

In this country, they are not beyond political and monetary influence. If they can't be recalled or.fired they are susceptible.
 
His points were completely irrelevant to the post of which he was responding, and misrepresented Grim's position.

not to those of use see the bigger issue...his points were spot on as far as the goverment over reach and this not stopping unless its curtailed...

some of us are not as in love with Obama and his judgement..
 
Last edited:
If that's all that's at stake, then Indiana can amend the law to protect gays from discrimination except in cases of cake and flowers. I would take a large bet that's not going to happen. It's bigger than cake and flowers.

It doesn't take away their legal recourse. IIRC
 
I don't disagree with you. The law is a smokescreen for attacks on the LGBT community. If it wasn't, it's broadness would address other groups, such as atheists for example. The actual legal intent of such a law, however, is not really problematic, and people can choose to associate with whomever they want. I support businesses having the right to choose who they will serve for whatever reason. I also support free speech and freedom of the press, and I would encourage people to take out full page ads in newspapers identifying businesses who choose not to serve certain groups of people.

it is not a smokescreen against the LBGT at all.. its a two way street for respect and tolerance..which the liberals have no respect of

I say take out full page adds on those who take out full page adds attacking a private business for their beliefs
 
Above you said this discussion was about more than than what the law is, and includes what we think the law should be. Should it be legal for a private business to have a DADT type policy. They will hire you if you're in the closet, and will fire you if they find out you're gay, for no reason other than you're gay.



Goodness, I really cannot figure out why you often go to great lengths to avoid the point than address it and have an honest debate.

Okay, forget DADT. What you want to know is should a business be able to fire you because you're gay and they don't like it? That's up to the business who they hire and fire. Businesses can fire you today for any reason (except being of the protected classes). So again, why is it any more horrific to lose your job because you're a man and your boss doesn't like your choice in male partner than it would be if you were straight and you lost your job because your boss couldn't stand your wife and didn't want her coming to your company picnics anymore?

You're trying to make this about emotion. It's about practicality. I know a business who fires a man because he's gay is going to face international backlash, so chances are they won't do it. The world is a very different place than it was in 1964. The law needs tweaking so these things don't happen. And the religious people shouldn't be treated above others either.

But whether you agree with me or not, I'll say what I keep saying - I do not believe anyone has the right to demand that a business owner serve him or engage in commerce with him. You disagree. That's okay. Nobody has to agree with everyone else 100% of the time.
 
I don't disagree with you. The law is a smokescreen for attacks on the LGBT community. If it wasn't, it's broadness would address other groups, such as atheists for example. The actual legal intent of such a law, however, is not really problematic, and people can choose to associate with whomever they want. I support businesses having the right to choose who they will serve for whatever reason. I also support free speech and freedom of the press, and I would encourage people to take out full page ads in newspapers identifying businesses who choose not to serve certain groups of people.


Yes but have you also considered that this is perhaps the whole point. It cuts both ways, CC. Taking out ads only draws attention to a specific issue, and either angers or affirms one's sensibilities. They tried to take down Chic fil A a couple years back, Oops, that didn't exactly pan out did it? Be careful what you wish for, is the lesson for the day! It goes to what I said some 150 pages back, and that is that I am surprisingly against such laws. I fear the long term efficacy of such laws, and followed to their logical conclusion only serve to divide people, not the other way around.

Editing: I think a good compromise is to shift the burden, or provide a pre-trial test of some homosexual wanting to sue, by simply asking them one question. Did you have other options? It is easily verifiable, and would not gum up court rooms.




Tim-
 
Last edited:
Whether sexual orientation is analogous to race with respect to public accommodations depends on what the law is in a particular state.

in respect to reality, it doesn't depend.
 
I "dodged" the question because I'm on topic. This isn't about being black. It's about businesses being allowed to decline service to gay people under the guise of religion.

kicking out a gay person for being gay is the same thing as kicking out a black person for being black.
 
not to those of use see the bigger issue...his points were spot on as far as the goverment over reach and this not stopping unless its curtailed...

some of are not as in love with Obama and his judgement..

Actually, they wouldn't be irrelevant to the "chicken littles" amongst you, folks who love to take things out of context and invent arguments and positions that don't exist... folks that just hate Obama because they need something to hate.
 
What's wrong is to tell a business he can't refuse service to someone for whatever reasons he chooses

nah, we tried that in the south up until the mid to late 60s. people acted like mean assholes and created a second tier citizenship for blacks. now you can't do that anymore, and rightfully so.
 
Yes but have you also considered that this is perhaps the whole point. It cuts both ways, CC. Taking out ads only draws attention to a specific issue, and either angers or affirms one's sensibilities. They tried to take down Chic fil A a couple years back, Oops, that didn't exactly pan out did it? Be careful what you wish for, is the lesson for the day! It goes to what I said some 150 pages back, and that is that I am surprisingly against such laws. I fear the long term efficacy of such laws, and followed to their logical conclusion only serve to divide people, not the other way around.

Editing: I think a good compromise is to shift the burden, or provide a pre-trial test of some homosexual wanting to sue, by simply asking them one question. Did you have other options? It is easily verifiable, and would not gum up court rooms.




Tim-

I would agree with you on this. ALL of these laws, telling people that they MUST associate with anyone, or telling them that they don't have to associate with anyone are divisive and problematic. Both sets need to be eliminated.
 
Actually, they wouldn't be irrelevant to the "chicken littles" amongst you, folks who love to take things out of context and invent arguments and positions that don't exist... folks that just hate Obama because they need something to hate.

your posts reflect the mindset of a true Obama believer and a liberal that is again ok with faschist over blown harvesting of our freedoms to fit the myopic short sighted liberal agenda..

many of us know this is just another chipping away with our freedoms...
 
it is not a smokescreen against the LBGT at all.. its a two way street for respect and tolerance..which the liberals have no respect of

I say take out full page adds on those who take out full page adds attacking a private business for their beliefs

Of course it's a smokescreen, attacking respect and tolerance, of which conservatives don't care one bit about. All they care about is making their morality the law of the land.

See? I make just as hackish and ignorant statements as you if I want. Now, do you actually want to discuss the issue reasonably, or do you want to keep making ignorant hack comments that have no basis in reality?
 
Sure you can. In fact, one of my friends who owns a café refused to serve 2 big fat guys wearing "PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals" shirts last year. She told them why she was doing it too. Then she called a lawyer friend of ours and asked if she broke a law. She told her "Nope".
Yes, establishments often can enforce "dress codes" - ties, jackets, no sandals, no shorts, no t-shirts, etc.

That is different than "we don't serve blondes" or "get out of here you look like my ex-girlfriend".
 
your posts reflect the mindset of a true Obama believer and a liberal that is again ok with faschist over blown harvesting of our freedoms to fit the myopic short sighted liberal agenda..

many of us know this is just another chipping away with our freedoms...

Your posts reflect the mindset of the anti-liberal, someone who doesn't actually believe in anything, but just rallies against things. Anything to attack anything that doesn't suit your agenda, and misrepresent anything that you can't argue against reasonably. This is the failing of the extreme conservative.
 
So...

1. A gay couple walks into a baker to order a wedding cake, the law provides the baker can use religion as a means to refuse service.

2. Two weeks later the baker and his wife walk into a antique shop owned by the gay couple and the gay couple refuses to serve the baker because of the bakers religions beliefs.​



In event #1 the baker will be exempt from Public Accommodation laws because he acted on his religious beliefs,

You are misstating the law. It does not "provide the baker can use religion as a means to refuse service." It does not necessarily mean the baker in your first example "will be exempt" from the applicable public accommodations law. State RFRA's like Indiana's do not, by themselves, excuse private persons from complying with laws that burden their religious beliefs. They allow them to raise that issue in their defense if they are sued, but they will still lose the suit if the court doesn't buy that defense.

The RFRA's usually also require government, when it burdens religious expression, to show it has a compelling purpose for doing that and that it is doing it in the least burdensome way. Put differently, these laws require government actions that burden religious expression to meet a "strict scrutiny" standard similar to the one the Supreme Court required them to meet in its decisions before 1990.

on the other hand the gay couple would be charged under the Public Accommodation law (if sexual orientation is covered by that State's law) and the complaint would proceed. They of course being in violation of both State and Federal law.

I don't understand that. In your second example, whether sexual orientation were a protected category in the state public accommodations law would be irrelevant--the people being denied service are being denied because of their religion. Whether the owners of the antique shop who are denying service are homosexual does not matter.

States can and have added more protected categories to their public accommodations laws than are protected under federal law. And states have inherent authority to do that. But the further they go in this process, and the further they expand the definition of public accommodation, the more likely it becomes that these laws will violate the Constitution in some way.

Discussions on this topic help reveal ersatz liberals for what they really are--which is the very opposite of liberal. True liberals strongly defend the First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, and association. Ersatz liberals view these freedoms as obstacles to the social agendas they want to ram down everyone's throat. They are in fact the very kind of intolerant, self-righteous prig they are so ready to accuse people who do not share their views on subjects like homosexuality of being.
 
Back
Top Bottom