• 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

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?
Jesus' sacrifice does not mean you can keep on sinning. He did not tell Mary that once he dies she can go back to being a prostitute.

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?

Mentioning someone's sin is not judging them.
 
Know from the bottom of your heart...I'm not gonna worry about it. But when you realize that you too are subject to complying with laws of the land...feel free to give me a shout.

:lol: And there is that circular reasoning I was waiting for. It fun when a statist does the same kind of circular nonsense a religious person does.

Religious person: God exists

Atheists: What is your proof?

Religious person: The bible says so.

Statist: Follow the law!

Me: Why?

Statist: Because it's the law!

:lol:
 
The problem is that politics are too big of an influence on the legal profession.

I'm all for an Internet voting system that makes our laws. My belief that most people are generally good would rule the day.

This would take organized politics, lobbyist, and monetary persuasion out of the mix.
 
:lol: And there is that circular reasoning I was waiting for.

Exactly. Straight out of Henrin's Book of Idiocracy. The guidelines on how to create illogical premises then beg for a logical conclusions.
 
Yes, because people who experience righteous anger when losing their human rights are just as bad as people who experience defensive anger when called out for oppressing others' rights. :roll: Epic fail, CC.
This is about a lot that is securing human rights
 
Some people in Indiana don't much like this new law

Ballard to legislature: Add sexual orientation as protected class

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is calling on the Indiana General Assembly to add sexual orientation as a protected class.

Ballard said Monday he is issuing an executive order that anyone who receives money from the city must abide by its human rights ordinance.

The mayor called a news conference Monday afternoon to discuss the city's response to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Mike Pence last week.

Business groups have said the law, which is to take effect July 1, will have grave economic consequences for Indy as well as the state at large.
 
Exactly. Straight out of Henrin's Book of Idiocracy. The guidelines on how to create illogical premises then beg for a logical conclusions.

So it's illogical to ask you what right anti-discrimination laws protect?

Ok?

Oh right, they protect civil rights, which of course only makes me ask what right does civil rights protect. :lamo
 
I guess we worry about different things, RM. I wouldn't lose my marbles because someone doesn't want to bake me a cake so I have to go to the guy down the road.

I'm not religious at all, but it doesn't bother me when others are. I just don't want to be forced to go to church or wear ashes on my head one day in February or read the Bible or pray with beads. To each his own.

Well, actually TB, I'm not really worried about any of it. I'm from Texas...the land of radical government legislation. And their constant attempts to make everybody want to praise Jesus. In Texas, the legislators see persecution of those who won't fall to their knees a waste of time. They prefer execution.
 
So it's illogical to ask you what right anti-discrimination laws protect?

Ok?

Oh right, they protect civil rights, which of course only makes me ask what right does civil rights protect. :lamo

The freedom to sue a Muslim baker who refuses fix me a cake made out of bacon and decorated with two guys kissing..
 
I'm all for an Internet voting system that makes our laws. My belief that most people are generally good would rule the day.

This would take organized politics, lobbyist, and monetary persuasion out of the mix.

In the Netherlands (I know smaller country so in the US elections should normally last longer) elections are a matter of weeks of campaigning. They are elected for 4 years, electing someone for 2 years is just insane, that would make someone being in campaigns virtually all of the time and that does not help the issue IMHO.

Sadly the power of lobbyists, money and other pressure groups has made the influence of the voters less and less and that is wrong.
 
The freedom to sue a Muslim baker who refuses fix me a cake made out of bacon and decorated with two guys kissing..

So basically the freedom to use the state against your fellow man for not providing you service. Is that about right? Is that supposed to make any logical sense when talking about rights? :lol:
 
Well, actually TB, I'm not really worried about any of it. I'm from Texas...the land of radical government legislation. And their constant attempts to make everybody want to praise Jesus. In Texas, the legislators see persecution of those who won't fall to their knees a waste of time. They prefer execution.

I'm lucky. I live in the Live Free or Die State. For the most part our legislators stay the hell out of our lives.
 
The freedom to sue a Muslim baker who refuses fix me a cake made out of bacon and decorated with two guys kissing..

That should never be a possible lawsuit. A baker does not make cake's with bacon on it and he should have the right to still retain artistic freedom to make specially designed cakes (like the bacon and the 2 kissing men).
 
Of course, which is why I can't wait to see that one play out. Might be a quickly growing "church" if the state has to allow them to use pot for "religious purposes." I've briefly looked to see if RFRA was tested that way at some point. Seems like this can't be a new idea. Didn't find anything.

Don't know if it was tested by the RFRA but, there is much history of it's use for such purposes.

Entheogenic use of cannabis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
So basically the freedom to use the state against your fellow man for not providing you service. Is that about right? Is that supposed to make any logical sense when talking about rights? :lol:

I will not have my right to sue anybody I want - for any reason I want - taken away by religious zealots. This is America!
 
In the Netherlands (I know smaller country so in the US elections should normally last longer) elections are a matter of weeks of campaigning. They are elected for 4 years, electing someone for 2 years is just insane, that would make someone being in campaigns virtually all of the time and that does not help the issue IMHO.

Sadly the power of lobbyists, money and other pressure groups has made the influence of the voters less and less and that is wrong.

Agreed.
 
Why doesn't the Christian church deny fellowship with those Christians that engage in despicable and sinful behaviors and engaging in heterosexual intercourse.

Some do, and they should
 
Isn't this about religious rights to not serve (insert x)? I assume those 3 are opposed to gay rights based on religious reasons. I don't know who else was in the room. And all of the stories about the businesses being compelled to serve people (the bakers, the photographer) were all religious opponents to gay lifestyles/SSM. So what's surprising about those people being there since the uproar is that the entire bill is an anti-gay bill?

The people claimed it violated their religious beliefs to serve same sex couples at a wedding, just as there are those in the 70s who claimed it violated their religious beliefs to serve interracial couples. People use religious beliefs as an excuse for not accepting responsibility for their own, personal beliefs.
 
I'm lucky. I live in the Live Free or Die State. For the most part our legislators stay the hell out of our lives.

You are indeed lucky...kind of. Texas State Board of Education has influence on the text book contents your kids have to read and learn.

I promise you...that's no bueno
 
Pence has been the honest one. It's his critics who have been disingenuous.

Yeah, OK. Does the bill allow for X? Uh, well, you know, like, whether it does X or not isn't the point, this is about FREEDOM! :roll:

Seems he's created a firestorm and his weasel performance on Sunday didn't help him any. I'm enjoying it anyway, which is good for me.
 
You are indeed lucky...kind of. Texas State Board of Education has influence on the text book contents your kids have to read and learn.

I promise you...that's no bueno

Oh don't get me wrong. Our State Board of Ed wields much power over the content of our kids' schooling. A useless group of morons if I ever saw one. It's the adults who they don't try to over control here. Thank goodness.
 

You see, conservatives and "Dutch style" social democrats can agree on issues. I am not an American social democrat ;) because I would think that would be closer to the position of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands (a party which I detest, they finance the poor by taking too much from the rich and the middle class, are too constricting when it comes to economics, I do not like nationalized industries, etc. etc. etc.).

I am a social liberal and a moderate on most other issues, sometimes even agreeing with conservatives.
 
You are indeed lucky...kind of. Texas State Board of Education has influence on the text book contents your kids have to read and learn.

I promise you...that's no bueno

All states have influence on what children learn. It's an intended consequence of government being involved in education.
 
Those who sponsored the law have, I believe, been caught off guard by the vicious dishonesty of their critics.

Their "dishonest" critics believed the proponents of the bill. And they noticed that given the chance to clarify the law and make clear that it wouldn't allow for discrimination (as you claim) the legislature declined. Utah of all places did a fine job of coming to a compromise. Indiana gave everyone the finger. It's blowing up on them. :boohoo:
 
Back
Top Bottom