• 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

They're viciously dishonest for believing the proponents of the bill. Got it.

More seriously, this is from a story today, and is consistent with lots of other stories on the amendments rejected by lawmakers:



The viciously dishonest critics aren't stupid and so watched that happen. When given the chance to clarify the law to guarantee it wouldn't be a tool to overturn local ordinances, the GOP said HELL NO!!! Someone in this thread mentioned Texas attempting to use "religious freedom" legislation to overturn local ordinances dealing with civil rights for LGBT. Here's one story. Can you guarantee me that the Indiana RFRA cannot be used to overturn local ordinances?

And the bottom line is the backers of this legislation in Indiana and elsewhere aren't stupid. They're well funded, organized, headed by smart people playing a long game, and it would be a mistake to take their coordinated efforts lightly. Somehow your assurances don't mean a whole lot given the muscle and coordination on this particular issue by groups that are proudly and vocally against SSM and contemptuous of civil rights being extended to LGBT. They tell us their goals, and you expect people not to believe them. That would be a mistake.

Indiana and the Intolerant Left - David French, National Review

". . . While it’s hardly surprising to see legally ignorant sportswriters use the language of segregated lunch counters, it’s disturbing to see well-informed CEOs such as Apple’s Tim Cook conjuring up the specter of the Old South. Simply put, their concerns about systematic invidious discrimination are utter hogwash, and they either know it or should know it. Why? Because RFRAs aren’t new, the legal standard they protect is decades older than the RFRAs themselves, and these legal standards have not been used — nor can they be used — to create the dystopian future the Left claims to fear. After all, the current RFRA legal tests were the law of the land for all 50 states — constitutionally mandated — until the Supreme Court’s misguided decision in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court allowed fear of drug use to overcome its constitutional good sense. And yet during the decades before Smith, non-discrimination statutes proliferated, and were successfully enforced to open public accommodations to people of all races, creeds, colors, and — yes — sexual orientations. . . . "
 
If that's actually true then it's a license to discriminate. Anyone with half a brain can justify any discrimination in religion - people did it with slavery. The Mormons used to believe goodness was related to being white, etc. And the courts can't judge whether your religious belief is "sincere" or not. The bill itself helpfully points out that the objection doesn't have to be related to a central tenet of any religion. So if your pastor says it, and it's #198 on #199 of sins, discriminate away.

What's funny is Pence is trying to go on national TV and tell the world you're wrong, but in front of religious audiences agree with you.

The law is designed to protect religious liberty. Religious groups are a protected class. They can't be persecuted simply because someone disagrees with their lifestyle. Where there is a conflict, the courts "balance the needs" of the groups in question not to burden individuals with undue institutional force. Reasonable under any standard of civility.
 
Running out of gas can easily put people in danger, particularly if it happens while trying to find a station that will sell you gas. Plus, it costs the person more money due to the businesses refusing to sell them something those businesses agreed to sell.

Isn't running out of gas your doing?
 
Oh, well I guess you don't believe it. I've been rejected by prospective employers, not every boy I ever liked liked me back, I've driven into gas stations and waited 10 minutes for nobody to come out to the pump, and so on. It's happened to other people as well. I don't think I'm the only person in the USA who hasn't gotten what I want exactly when I wanted it. I can also come up with extreme examples of anything and say the world is coming to an end because of it. I don't think there's any point to that. If you think we have a major problem where gas stations aren't going to sell their gas because they don't like you, that could make for an interesting game of "what if", but I don't play that real well. I can also imagine I'll hit the $300 million Powerball next week, but in the meantime I won't start spending the money.

It can and does happen. It is even more likely to happen in areas where there are only one store or one pharmacy or one gas station, which do exist in the US.
 
Yep -- and the one discriminating lost. Elane Photograph v. Willock, the state Supreme Court would not allow a photographer to use the state’s RFRA law as a defense

Which means in New Mexico, you can run a cleaning business out of your garage and be forced to accept KKK sheets to wash. Sure, you can object, but then you will be held liable for discrimination in civil court.

Seems like such a great idea to allow.
 
Last edited:
Some people in Indiana don't much like this new law


Yeah, and then some are actually out explaining what it really is about.



To further quell the left's hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA. I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?


The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law. Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration. But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis......snip~

Oh Dear: The Liberal Hysteria Over Indiana
 
Check out my post #1940 ....

I didn't even get a chance to read what he posted to me that you corrected.:lol:

I've had no use for the Department of Ed since my kid came home and told me I did drugs because I smoke, and the teaching curriculum said smoking was a drug.
 
Oh. Well I guess I lied because your mother is different than my mother in law.:shrug:

No. Your mother in law is just using her religious beliefs as an excuse for her personal beliefs against same sex marriage/gays. If tomorrow, Catholics came out and said "we were wrong, there is nothing against homosexuality in the Bible", would she accept that decree? Would she simply say, "well my religion accepts you now, so I will too"?
 
Isn't running out of gas your doing?

Does it matter? I can't be coerced to gas up every time somebody else wants me to. Right? If my choice to run out of gas causes somebody else harm...so what?
 
Well, Peter, I won't set idle and say nothing while religious zealots attempt to control who I can and can't sue. If choose to sue against some religious interests. Too bad for them. I have the right of "freedom from religion" as much as they have "freedom of religion".

But lets not forego the reality here. Some religions are profoundly more conservative and actually oppressive. Knowing what I know about the Muslim religion, I'd say that it would be obvious to which bakery is operated by Muslims.

What's not so obvious is ultra conservative Christians who wear their religion on their business shirt sleeves. Hobby Lobby came out to the nation as being a more radical form of Christian affiliation. I say radical because not all Christian denominations subscribe to their beliefs.

When you look at all of the small mom and pop business across the country...who want to cry "religious of freedom". Then others have the right to cry "freedom from religion. I'll see'em in court if they want to play the religious card. The same for any size business as far as I'm concerned.

But I already said that companies should be mandated to sell regular products to everyone who orders them regardless of gender, religion, lack of religion, etc. etc. etc.

But when someone asks for an off the book service/cake/product which is not part of the regular line of products, then someone has artistic freedom IMHO. Just like you cannot force a Jewish baker to make a "heil Hitler" cake.
 
I didn't even get a chance to read what he posted to me that you corrected.:lol:

I've had no use for the Department of Ed since my kid came home and told me I did drugs because I smoke, and the teaching curriculum said smoking was a drug.

Lo Sienta...
 
It can and does happen. It is even more likely to happen in areas where there are only one store or one pharmacy or one gas station, which do exist in the US.

Of course. And I guess if you are on empty and the one gas station in town is closed until Monday, that's much better. Nobody had their feelings hurt.
 
Of course. And I guess if you are on empty and the one gas station in town is closed until Monday, that's much better. Nobody had their feelings hurt.

Closing your business for any reason is "fair" to everyone. It may be putting people "in danger" or costing them money, but it treats everyone equally. Those other things don't. So there is no reason why someone shouldn't be able to be compensated for such unreasonable unfair treatment.
 
All of the pious hypocrite bigots should be asking themselves one question: WWJD?
 
Indiana and the Intolerant Left - David French, National Review

". . . While it’s hardly surprising to see legally ignorant sportswriters use the language of segregated lunch counters, it’s disturbing to see well-informed CEOs such as Apple’s Tim Cook conjuring up the specter of the Old South. Simply put, their concerns about systematic invidious discrimination are utter hogwash, and they either know it or should know it. Why? Because RFRAs aren’t new, the legal standard they protect is decades older than the RFRAs themselves, and these legal standards have not been used — nor can they be used — to create the dystopian future the Left claims to fear. After all, the current RFRA legal tests were the law of the land for all 50 states — constitutionally mandated — until the Supreme Court’s misguided decision in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court allowed fear of drug use to overcome its constitutional good sense. And yet during the decades before Smith, non-discrimination statutes proliferated, and were successfully enforced to open public accommodations to people of all races, creeds, colors, and — yes — sexual orientations. . . . "

Mr French is not only wrong, he is denying the very words spoken by the advocates for these new Religious Freedom laws.

The current RFRA legal tests were NOT the law of the land, which was the reason for the passage of the 1993 RFRA federal bill.

Mr French is either ignorant or lying - I don't know

1982 Wisconsin was the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

1996 In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado's Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them “special rights.” According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . . constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.”
Please note that date - three years after passage of the federal RFRA. For some reason, the case seems to show that discrimination against LGBT Americans was legal in some states despite Mr French's claims
 
19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting - The Washington Post
The same law is on the books in 19 States, the Federal government(1993), and in-effect through case law in 11 other States. How is Indiana's legalizing discrimination, but these other 31 instances are not?

Furthermore, can you show a case where RFRA was leveraged to win a discrimination case? Here are 10 cases, but they don't align with your viewpoint: 10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's

I don't know that the same law is on the books in 19 states. I'll have to do some reading.

None of the 10 Americans "helped by the Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's" were gay. It would seem those individuals were included due to state religious freedom law. Indiana's expressed intent, however, is to use the law so that a small but vocal minority of religionists may use their religion to exclude people. Compassion helped 10 people in other states, Indiana passed a law to enable religious hatred.
 
But I already said that companies should be mandated to sell regular products to everyone who orders them regardless of gender, religion, lack of religion, etc. etc. etc.

But when someone asks for an off the book service/cake/product which is not part of the regular line of products, then someone has artistic freedom IMHO. Just like you cannot force a Jewish baker to make a "heil Hitler" cake.

No, of course I can't force a Jewish baker to do a Hitler cake for me ....but I might sue him or her for not. It's their choice. And a jury of peers can rule against me...or for me.

But again, Peter, let's apply some common sense. Are KKK members - or say Storm Front members gonna line up to get a Jewish baker to bake a cake with Hitler on it? I'd say not unless they were purposely wanting to cause problems and that type of harassment is against the law.

The cake for lesbians incident and the florist incident that became so exploited by media ...were much more isolated than the faux example I posted above.
 
Mr French is not only wrong, he is denying the very words spoken by the advocates for these new Religious Freedom laws.

The current RFRA legal tests were NOT the law of the land, which was the reason for the passage of the 1993 RFRA federal bill.

Mr French is either ignorant or lying - I don't know

1982 Wisconsin was the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

1996 In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado's Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them “special rights.” According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . . constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.”
Please note that date - three years after passage of the federal RFRA. For some reason, the case seems to show that discrimination against LGBT Americans was legal in some states despite Mr French's claims

Thank you for making Mr. French's point. No discrimination against LGBT has survived court challenge since RFRA was passed in 1993.
 
Which means in New Mexico, you can run a cleaning business out of your garage and be forced to accept KKK sheets to wash.

Well at least she is not a seamstress, otherwise she would be obligated to make the KKK sheets.
 
Indiana and the Intolerant Left - David French, National Review

". . . While it’s hardly surprising to see legally ignorant sportswriters use the language of segregated lunch counters, it’s disturbing to see well-informed CEOs such as Apple’s Tim Cook conjuring up the specter of the Old South. Simply put, their concerns about systematic invidious discrimination are utter hogwash, and they either know it or should know it. Why? Because RFRAs aren’t new, the legal standard they protect is decades older than the RFRAs themselves, and these legal standards have not been used — nor can they be used — to create the dystopian future the Left claims to fear. After all, the current RFRA legal tests were the law of the land for all 50 states — constitutionally mandated — until the Supreme Court’s misguided decision in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court allowed fear of drug use to overcome its constitutional good sense. And yet during the decades before Smith, non-discrimination statutes proliferated, and were successfully enforced to open public accommodations to people of all races, creeds, colors, and — yes — sexual orientations. . . . "

I already saw that.

Then have the legislature "clarify" the law, something they said HELL NO!! to during the process earlier.
 
Thank you for making Mr. French's point. No discrimination against LGBT has survived court challenge since RFRA was passed in 1993.

That is some good defence, wrong though it is. Mr French claimed that gays were protected BEFORE passage of the RFRA bill in 1993.

Why then are right wing controlled states passing their own versions of the RFRA if not in attempts to subvert the movement to preserve gay rights? Why are so many state legislators quite openly admitting they are supporting such laws because their intention is to allow discrimination?
 
I guess in your view everyone has a right to be a bigot as long as they are acting with "sincere religious belief". The same nonsense was spouted about integrating schools, inter-racial marriages.... BS then and BS now.

How about bigotry against the religious?
Are religious groups not a protected class?
Should the religious discriminated against because of their lifestyle choice?
Should the force of governmental institutions be used against the religious to compel behavior in conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs?
Isn't your calling of religious groups "Bigots" an example of hate speech, designed to create public pressure against the religious?

There is a balance that the courts have traditionally applied when protected groups are in conflict, the Indiana law re-affirms the courts role in balancing the needs of all individuals and protected classes, not just the ones that scream the loudest.
 
Back
Top Bottom