• 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

AGENT J said:
there are none, just like there are no laws forcing a baker to make cakes for gays, nor is that the discussion and thats exactly my point, thank you lol
Click to expand...
I didn't say "force" I said compel. Try again.
 
AGENT J said:
I agree and those rights already exist and are protected, this has nothing to do with them.
Click to expand...

that right is under attack and is not protected. bakeries have been forced to go out of business, so have day care centers.
 
ARealConservative said:
this isn't a religious issue at all. We have freedom to have really bad ideas, and to live by those really bad ideas.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% thats why people claiming this is about religious freedom are full of **** and its just a clock to hide thier bigotry
 
Simpleχity;1064464417 said:
It is a religious issue. The original intent was to protect Native American religious practices (i.e. sacred burial grounds, smoking peyote, etc)
Click to expand...

this law would protect atheists as well.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Open a private club and accept dues, discriminate away.
Click to expand...

Even clubs are forced to accept in people they don't want to accept in. Look at all male golf clubs for an example of that.
 
ARealConservative said:
no, it isn't. the bill protects people with a lack of a religious beliefs as well.
Click to expand...

its not protecting anybody, its infringing on others rights and why when push comes to shove it will completely fail and help solidify equal rights, its awesome actually :D
 
CanadaJohn said:
If I rob a bank, is the government discriminating against me by arresting me? As a contributing member of society, you agree to live by the laws of that society or suffer the consequences of non-compliance. The municipal government grants you a business license with the understanding that you've read and understand the rules for operating a business in that jurisdiction. If you fail to comply with those rules of operation, you put yourself in a position where your license may be suspended or voided. The government didn't discriminate and put different rules in place for you that are not in place for anyone else. It is you, the owner of the business, who is deciding some rules don't apply to you, for whatever reason. If you take that position, you actively bring on the potential of regulated punishment, just like if you robbed a bank. Don't want to suffer the consequences, don't do the crime. And if you're incapable of controlling your actions, maybe stay away from banks and/or owning a business that sells to the public.

See how easy that is?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's that easy. The fact a municipal ordinance or state law exists, by itself, does not make what it requires or prohibits lawful. Like every other law in the U.S., it has to comply with the Constitution. A local ordinance that prohibited everyone in that jurisdiction from possessing a firearm, for example, could not be enforced. And the same goes for state public accommodations laws. In the Dale case, the Supreme Court held a New Jersey law that prohibited a chapter of the Boy Scouts from revoking the membership of a homosexual scoutmaster, on the ground that the Boy Scouts were a public accommodation that was discriminating against the scoutmaster because of his sexual orientation, was invalid because it violated the freedom of expressive association guaranteed by the First Amendment.
 
AGENT J said:
I agree 100% thats why people claiming this is about religious freedom are full of **** and its just a clock to hide thier bigotry
Click to expand...

practicing bigotry is a form of freedom.

we don't need government to protect the freedoms that everyone agrees with, we need them to protect the ones that the majority would take from us. this is one of those.

it really is that simple. We aren't solving a problem where services are being withheld at such a level that gay people can't get cakes, or dr visits.

if the problem was actually at that level, I would have to reconsider if we need to take a step back from a freedom solution, but no such dilemma exists here.
 
AGENT J said:
its not protecting anybody, its infringing on others rights and why when push comes to shove it will completely fail and help solidify equal rights, its awesome actually :D
Click to expand...

you don't have a right to my service.
 
Taylor said:
I didn't say "force" I said compel. Try again.
Click to expand...

use either word, i dont need to try again because the answer is the same. LMAO
Compel Compel - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: to force (someone) to do something
: to make (something) happen : to force (something)

here ill repeated again catering to your dishonest and failed semantics (since the definition is force :lamo)


there are none, just like there are none compelling a baker to make cakes for gays, nor is that the discussion and thats exactly my point, thank you lol
 
ARealConservative said:
it is a horrible business decision to discriminate against people that wish to pay you for the product or service you went into business to offer.
Click to expand...

Thank you- at work and hard to keep up with the discussion.
It will be found to be illegal.
 
JANFU said:
Thank you- at work and hard to keep up with the discussion.
It will be found to be illegal.
Click to expand...

legality is fleeting

slavery was found to be legal once.
 
ARealConservative said:
1.)practicing bigotry is a form of freedom.
2.)we don't need government to protect the freedoms that everyone agrees with, we need them to protect the ones that the majority would take from us. this is one of those.
3.)it really is that simple. We aren't solving a problem where services are being withheld at such a level that gay people can't get cakes, or dr visits.
4.)if the problem was actually at that level, I would have to reconsider if we need to take a step back from a freedom solution, but no such dilemma exists here.
Click to expand...
1.) correct until it breaks the law or infringes on the rights of others
2.) your welcome to that meaningless opinion and many feel this is protecting us from one people would try to take away
3.) your subjective opinion of the problem is meaningless to rights
4.) see 3
 
ARealConservative said:
1.)that right is under attack and is not protected.
2.) bakeries have been forced to go out of business, so have day care centers.
Click to expand...
1.)its not under attack in any fashion at all, claims that those will never bee taken seriously by educated, honest and objective people
2.) 100% dishonesty, there was no force
 
AGENT J said:
1.) correct until it breaks the law or infringes on the rights of others
2.) your welcome to that meaningless opinion and many feel this is protecting us from one people would try to take away
3.) your subjective opinion of the problem is meaningless to rights
4.) see 3
Click to expand...

wasted enough time with you.

"rights" change. to own a slave was once a right.

some time in the future, the do-gooders like you will probably make it illegal to discriminate in who you date.
 
ARealConservative said:
wasted enough time with you.

"rights" change. to own a slave was once a right.

some time in the future, the do-gooders like you will probably make it illegal to discriminate in who you date.
Click to expand...

If that happens I bet it's not that far in the future.
 
Henrin said:
The commerce clause deals with trade between states, not trade between businesses and consumers across state lines.
Click to expand...

This is completely absurd. States do not engage in trade. The commerce clause is about regulating trade that takes place across multiple states because it would be inappropriate for any state to make laws governing trade over one another, and to avoid having to constantly decide which state's laws held sway. You have no idea how American law works, do you?

Also, considering that anti-discrimination laws affect trade within states that entire excuse of yours doesn't work even if you were right on the powers granted by the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

As I said, even a small business that only sells its products and services to a small down uses and benefits from interstate commerce. Commerce simply doesn't occur on the same small scale that it could in 1789.

If you ever took the time to notice all the members listed in the commerce clause are governments and that wasn't by mistake.
Click to expand...

The commerce clause does not list members. As above, I don't think you have any idea how our laws or our governments actually work.

Jerry said:
Neither are hajibs or wedding rings, but boot a person out for wearing either and you're in hot water. Same. Exact. Thing.

Well no, I'm not, if I can be removed for doing nothing harmful or illegal to anyone at all.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in listening to you whine about gun rights, but keep in mind that it is not illegal to shout at everyone in a business, either, and you would rightfully be thrown out if you were doing that. Just because something isn't against the law doesn't mean you should actually be doing it.

Which amendment covers horses?
Click to expand...

The ninth. The same one that covers coffee, sweaters, and basically every other thing you do that isn't expression. The ninth exists basically for the sole purpose of telling people, in the words of the Georgia delegation at the constitutional convention "If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others." Congratulations on being foreseen by some of the founders.
 
ARealConservative said:
1.)wasted enough time with you.
2.)"rights" change. to own a slave was once a right.
3.) some time in the future, the do-gooders like you will probably make it illegal to discriminate in who you date.
Click to expand...

1.) I agree you pushing opinions and falsehoods as fact is a waste of time for you because ill never buy it, I accept your concession
2.) it was never right to own slaves LMAO
3.) nope people like me will simply protect equal rights and the constitution and apply it to ALL OF US, not try to give people special treatment and allow them to infringe on the rights of others
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
This is completely absurd. States do not engage in trade. The commerce clause is about regulating trade that takes place across multiple states because it would be inappropriate for any state to make laws governing trade over one another, and to avoid having to constantly decide which state's laws held sway. You have no idea how American law works, do you?
Click to expand...

So you admit that it deals with states and their relationship with trade, not with trade between consumer and business. Good to know. What would that little factoid mean? Oh right, that the government has the power to tell states what to do, not business or consumers.

As I said, even a small business that only sells its products and services to a small down uses and benefits from interstate commerce. Commerce simply doesn't occur on the same small scale that it could in 1789.
Click to expand...

Benefiting from some other trade has nothing to do with the power to regulate the trade in question. Try again.

The commerce clause does not list members. As above, I don't think you have any idea how our laws or our governments actually work.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, it does. All those groups mentioned are governments.
 
Henrin said:
The only difference between the two is a license with terms set by the government. The government could easily apply the same terms to home ownership.
Click to expand...

Yes, a license to engage in business with the PUBLIC, and that is a huge distinction.

It's like saying the only difference between an apple and a dump truck is one of them grows on trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom