• 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

Homosexuals just don't appreciate the opportunity this bill provides for them. They can create a religion of their own like the Church of the Great Holy Phallus or some such thing and then refuse to serve those despicable breeders that are an affront to their religion because they engage in despicable and sinful behaviors like attending traditional Christian churches and engaging in heterosexual intercourse.

That might be fun, but I don't know of any gays who have any problem at all with straight people, many of them have their own kids, many go to church, etc. It would make life difficult to discriminate against them too, what with 90-98% or so of the population being straight.

What I have seen is a group that formed a Church of Weed or something like it, and obviously smoking pot is a central tenet, etc. I do look forward to their case coming before a judge.
 
No, the problem is there that bad judicial decisions cannot be reversed on appeal. That makes the power of a judge far too great IMHO. No judicial decision should be beyond reproach in the criminal justice system. In the Netherlands no legal decision of any seriousness is made by just 1 judge but by 3 judges. Afterwards both the prosecution and the defense can appeal that decision and if they still feel the decision has been made on unlawful grounds they can go to our version of the supreme court and have it overturned and kicked back to a lower court to redo the trial.

I still do not think that judges should be beholden to anyone except the law and should not make decisions with elections on their mind because that just is very unhealthy from a legal point of view.

In a perfect world..but in this one the Elites have installed safeguards to prevent public input. Cause they know what's good for us.
 
Jesus did not avoid them. That is precisely the point. He associated with them.

He associated with sinners to try to get them to stop sinning.

Indiana has legalized doing just the opposite. And in the name of Jesus and his love.

Jesus did not buy or sell the prostitute trashy clothes to help her business.Jesus did not help the tax collector find more ways to steal more money.Jesus did not help muggers get better weapons. Jesus did not buy burglars a set of lock picks to make it easier for them to rob homes. So I am pretty sure Jesus would not his followers preforming gay weddings, selling gay wedding cakes and etc seeing how those encourage/aid more sinning not less sinning.
 
Look at it this way. A judge might approach this with very same concern that you have - what sense does it make to protect people based on race, but not one of the million other classifications that might arise?

In the case of Blonde vs. Get Out, Inc., the judge may ask the question, if we do not allow discrimination based on something as arbitrary as skin color, why should we allow discrimination based on something so arbitrary as hair color? If the defendents have not answered that question, if there is no legitimate business interest in denying service to blondes, the court may very well (and likely will) rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

Now, you may disagree with this, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

Judges make mistakes - lots of them, in fact. They let child molesters out to molest more children. They award adults millions of dollars in damages because they made stupid decisions that impacted them. And so on. I appreciate that there is a need for them but I don't approach things thinking "what would a judge do", because that could cause my eyeballs to fall out just thinking about it.

I think if we assume anyone can go before a judge and say "He wouldn't serve me!", our already cluttered judicial system will get clogged even more with stupid suits. That's another issue I have with all of this and that's why I keep thinking, right or wrong, it has to be all or nothing. Today we're talking about religious beliefs and gay people. Tomorrow it could be that something entirely different. I get requiring emergency personnel and medical personnel to serve everyone without question. I'm struggling with the retailers and service providers and restaurants because in most of these cases we hear about (all, actually), the gay couple or gay person being discriminated against in the name of religion had other options, and it strikes me as vindictive to get so upset about it. Not everyone likes everyone else and not everyone approves of everyone else. You can't force these religious people to believe something they don't, just like you'll never force me to believe that it's okay to use an elephant in a circus even though the law says you can.

It isn't as black and white on either side as people would like it to be, and by the way - the name calling in this thread from both sides is part of why most people hate this issue. I see equal insulting, degrading and bullying of religious people as I see the religious people denigrating and rudely criticizing gay people. It's pretty appalling.
 
That might be fun, but I don't know of any gays who have any problem at all with straight people, many of them have their own kids, many go to church, etc. It would make life difficult to discriminate against them too, what with 90-98% or so of the population being straight.

What I have seen is a group that formed a Church of Weed or something like it, and obviously smoking pot is a central tenet, etc. I do look forward to their case coming before a judge.

The original RFR act was all about peyote ingestion for religious purposes,so why not.

Here's a look at history of 'religious freedom' laws
 
Yes, I am. If they want to violate my civil rights...correct, I'm doing just that.


LOL... how you figure?... I cant join the WNBA... are my civil rights being taken...or is common sense being used and I cant sue them..
 
Can't read any of those captions. Is there supposed to be something noteworthy in there?

Not that difficult to find a much larger image online, IF you were really interested

Here are the three sweethearts who are circled in the photo:
Tall one in the back - Curt Smith, equates homosexuality with beastiality, helped write the bill
over Pence's left shoulder, Eric Miller, distributed a flier claiming pastors could be jailed for preaching against homosexuality
bearded one - Micah Clark, believes homosexuality is a treatable order, once freaked out about a lesbian high school student wearing a tux to the prom.
 
What does this civil right they are violating protect exactly?

yea.. Id like to know also.. good question...I cant wait for the response..
 
I get that. But one isn't mutually exclusive of the other.

How do business owners decide to exclude a consumer based on a religious belief? What criteria or method will they use to discriminate? Your Muslin example won't be near as blatant when it comes to discriminating against all who they claim violates their religious beliefs.

Consumers will learn to work around bigoted business owners.


take the cases we all know about

those are exactly what this law is about

the bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding

the florist refusing to do the arrangements for another gay wedding

and the wedding chapel not wanting to perform gay marriages at their establishment

those owners "can and should" be allowed to say thanks, but no thanks to the business

in every one of those cases, the couple had OTHER choices

this law allows that freedom to say no, without hopefully getting sued, or losing their business

now, if their views cause them to lose business, and eventually go under because of their views, that is their issue
 
He associated with sinners to try to get them to stop sinning.



Jesus did not buy or sell the prostitute trashy clothes to help her business.Jesus did not help the tax collector find more ways to steal more money.Jesus did not help muggers get better weapons. Jesus did not buy burglars a set of lock picks to make it easier for them to rob homes. So I am pretty sure Jesus would not his followers preforming gay weddings, selling gay wedding cakes and etc seeing how those encourage/aid more sinning not less sinning.

Didn't know the bible had any verses regarding Jesus' views on gays. But as far as all of the others you've mention. Didn't God say Jesus was the supreme sacrifice for everybody's sins...that they would be forgiven for their transgressions?

So now, I see so many so-called Christians who have decided to stand in for God - and have decided to judge now...and relieve God from having too much to do on Judgment Day. Right?
 
:lamo......................

Forced to be oppressed against my will, Henrin... You know who oppression works.

laughable... again go tto Detroit.. go find a Muslim Baker and ask for the bacon cake with a picture of Muhammad on it with men kissing..

You are violating their civil rights to not have to by law violate when they feel is holy..
 
take the cases we all know about

those are exactly what this law is about

the bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding

the florist refusing to do the arrangements for another gay wedding

and the wedding chapel not wanting to perform gay marriages at their establishment

those owners "can and should" be allowed to say thanks, but no thanks to the business

in every one of those cases, the couple had OTHER choices

this law allows that freedom to say no, without hopefully getting sued, or losing their business

now, if their views cause them to lose business, and eventually go under because of their views, that is their issue

I'm gonna open us a nation-wide business so I can refuse sell to everybody whose name is gdgyva and who looks like Homer Simpson...because its against my religion.
 
take the cases we all know about

those are exactly what this law is about

the bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding

the florist refusing to do the arrangements for another gay wedding

and the wedding chapel not wanting to perform gay marriages at their establishment

those owners "can and should" be allowed to say thanks, but no thanks to the business

in every one of those cases, the couple had OTHER choices

this law allows that freedom to say no, without hopefully getting sued, or losing their business

now, if their views cause them to lose business, and eventually go under because of their views, that is their issue

exactly.. some churches will deny doing hetero marriages if they feel on or both of the couple didnt abide by the teachings of that church.. and nobodies rights were violated..
 
Not that difficult to find a much larger image online, IF you were really interested

Here are the three sweethearts who are circled in the photo:
Tall one in the back - Curt Smith, equates homosexuality with beastiality, helped write the bill
over Pence's left shoulder, Eric Miller, distributed a flier claiming pastors could be jailed for preaching against homosexuality
bearded one - Micah Clark, believes homosexuality is a treatable order, once freaked out about a lesbian high school student wearing a tux to the prom.

Yes, I was interested, and I didn't think it was bad to ask you what it was instead of spending half an hour Googling to find it.

So there were 3 people who oppose gay marriage or gay people at the signing. And this is somehow surprising? Who normally attends bill signings - opponents of the bill?
 
I'm gonna open us a nation-wide business so I can refuse sell to everybody whose name is gdgyva and who looks like Homer Simpson...because its against my religion.

Would that be a bad thing? It limits your customer pool slightly, but that would be your issue that you assume, yes?
 
laughable... again go tto Detroit.. go find a Muslim Baker and ask for the bacon cake with a picture of Muhammad on it with men kissing..

You are violating their civil rights to not have to by law violate when they feel is holy..

Come to Texas where everything you do is anti-religious...
 
I'm gonna open us a nation-wide business so I can refuse sell to everybody whose name is gdgyva and who looks like Homer Simpson...because its against my religion.


no problem

as long as someone else can sell me what you can sell me

no skin off of my nose.....

but, your loss....my money is green
 
Yes, I was interested, and I didn't think it was bad to ask you what it was instead of spending half an hour Googling to find it.

So there were 3 people who oppose gay marriage or gay people at the signing. And this is somehow surprising? Who normally attends bill signings - opponents of the bill?

Wait..... we have all been told this has nothing to do with gays. Were we lied to?
 
Would that be a bad thing? It limits your customer pool slightly, but that would be your issue that you assume, yes?

No, not at all...but I bet I maintain a lot more customers than the a lot of business in Indiana who want to openly run a bigoted business. How many their look like Homer?
 
I wish it were that easy. To understand the law in a particular state, you can't simply read the statute, you need to be familiar with all of the relevant case law. This is why you're not likely to find a quick and easy summary of how the law works in every state, because to compile and maintain such a record requires a substantial amount of work.

For example, in California you can even walk into a Jewish establishment in Nazi regalia and they cannot (legally) refuse service. This would never be apparent from the statute, but the court decided that someone's Nazi political beliefs are analogous to religion and therefore they could not be denied service.

I don't have any problem with that decision. There are obvious downsides for either result. As it is a small number of Jewish establishments will be forced to serve Nazi's, but all Jews in California have strong protection against being discriminated against, including by idiots like those Nazi's.

It would be impossible for this difficult issue for any public policy to come to the "right" answer in every case. Nothing works like that. So the relevant policy question is does protecting everyone from discrimination, including scum like the Nazis, serve a public purpose and to me the answer is obviously it does.
 
My friend visited a clinic in Marion Indiana for nothing serious he says. After filling out a standard questionaire, in his words he was "strongly recommended another clinic" Do you really think that businesses are NOT going to be using this BS law to jettison those who are gay or those that they don't like the looks of. Especially right center smack dab in Central WASP Indiana. I've spent a great deal of time in Fairmount Indiana, I've seen what they deal with. I get stink eye from the locals for the way that I look. And this law is just what the locals will use to make their feelings "extra known" to them.
what was the reason given for suggesting he find another clinic
 
Back
Top Bottom