• 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

That the term might be used when it's not appropriate doesn't change the "practical meaning." It's only recently that we've pretended that it can apply to both MLK, Jr. and Robert Byrd in his Klan days. When we pretend it does describe both men, we've just decided the word has no practical meaning and might as well be struck from everyday usage.

I agree..it's too subjective. ;)
 
Yes there are, you are profoundly wrong.




As a gay man living in a state that protects your right to service by the public, you do, well, in fact, have a right to it.




Force as in SWAT teams raiding establishments. Probably not, but force comes in many different ways, some of which include punitive fines, and legal fees.



A bit redundant, see above.



No force to say yes I will serve you, but if you say no I won't serve you, you will be legally compelled, if you insist, you will be tried and if found guilty, you will be fined. If you persist, you will be fined even more to a point where you will not be able to continue business. But you know all this, don't you? I mean how could you not know this, it has only been pointed out to you about 15 million times already. ;)





Round and round we go, eh?




And around, and around..




Not following? What does a contract have to do with anything?


Tim-

links? proof? facts? let me know when you have them
you really should pay attention to context and the actually discussion instead of your obsession with me always trying to get your first chck in the win column.

would you like my proof to get further destroyed?

i make widgets, you are a gay man, you walk in my store and want 500 widgets by 5:00, what law forces me to serve you cause you are gay. please state it in your next post or simply show honesty and integrity admit your clime is factually wrong

anything besides listing the law or admitting you are wrong will result in another failure of your claims and your posts losing to facts.

Im betting this is dodged or back peddled on who is in?

also to answer your question "right to contract" doesnt have anything to do with this but somebody made that false claim too
 
LOL....do you REALLY think what you wrote has ever been the definition of "Bigotry"? If so...I suggest a English course may be in order.

As for marriage...which of the vast definitions throughout the course of history are you referring to?

I suggest you Google it.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"
 
It's meant to be shameful or hurtful. LOL!

But hey. it works on politicians.

It's not intended as a compliment, that's for sure, but it (WAS?) is a useful word to describe a person who is intolerant of people of different ethnic/religious/national origin/sexual orientation, etc. It was until recently universally understood to refer to, e.g., those defending Jim Crow laws in the South in the 1950s and NOT those working to overturn those laws. It would apply to a business owner with "WHITES ONLY" in the window and not a business owner who fires a waiter for refusing to wait on "fa*s or ni**ers" and whose restaurant welcomes anyone of any race, creed or color as customers. Etc.
 
Screen_Shot_2015-03-27_at_8.45.13_AM.png

Oh my gosh, 'a cartoon argument' - worse yet, its not even funny. Equally unfunny to Bowers is honesty:

"If I discriminate against or criticize you its called free speech, free association, and freedom of religion. If you return the sentiment and conduct, it is exactly the same thing". Persecution only occurs when someone repeatedly harasses or punishes another in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; to make someone suffer because of their belief. You know, like a founder of Mozilla "getting whacked (hounded into resigning) by the gay mafia" (Bill Mahr) .
 
Last edited:
LOL....do you REALLY think what you wrote has ever been the definition of "Bigotry"? If so...I suggest a English course may be in order.

As for marriage...which of the vast definitions throughout the course of history are you referring to?

Just curious how you define bigotry. I was brought up to understand it's strongly and stubbornly disliking people, beliefs or ideas that you don't agree with. I'm sure every one of us on here qualifies as a bigot in some way. Do you like everything and everyone, all the time?
 
That's not true - it's only recently that the definition of bigotry has been turned on its head to include those who are intolerant of bigots, and so would include the civil rights workers killed in Alabama, AND those who killed them. Orwell is smiling somewhere....

No, everyone is a bigot in some way or another. It might not be towards gays, but there is no doubt you're a bigot in some way or another.
 
I'm 53 - I hope you don't consider that old. I'm not "even especially religious" - I'm not religious at all. Neither my husband nor I believe, and our sons weren't Christened, Baptized, or any of that. None of them have ever attended a church service. I'm conservative though, but I'm also one of those people who think consenting adults should marry whoever the hell they want - same sex, 19 wives, whatever. It isn't my business, just like it was nobody's business when I decided to marry my husband.

I consider anyone who was an adult during the fifties "old," since they grew up in a time I can't relate to except in purely abstract terms.

I know the black vote on Prop 8 wasn't the biggest in relevance. Then again, there is no truth to the statement "the Republican base hates gays".

82% of Republicans vs 36% of Democrats voted for prop 8. 85% of conservatives vs. 22% of liberals voted for prop 8. Opposition to ssm remains, for now, a Republican/conservative thing. Of course, these numbers are from 2008, so if the vote were held again today the Republican/conservative percentages would probably be less extreme.

Edit: Yup, the percentages would be different. Strong Opposition to ssm, which almost certainly came mostly from conservatives, has dropped from 40% in 2009 to 24% today.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
 
Last edited:
I suggest you Google it.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"

lets see one side (equal rights side) doesnt like the others opinions of others but has no problem with the others being allowed to marry and supports the laws and rights protecting them

the other side (agains equal rights) doesnt like the others opinions AND doesnt want gays to be allowed to marry and doesnt want them to have the same rights and laws that protect them

hmmmmm
wheres the tolerance at again?
 
LOL....do you REALLY think what you wrote has ever been the definition of "Bigotry"? If so...I suggest a English course may be in order.

As for marriage...which of the vast definitions throughout the course of history are you referring to?


A bigot is One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Truth is that since the 1600's the use of the word bigot was used as a slur, rhetorical in nature, and that usage persists today. There is no mention of rationale, or irrationality, and the way you used it above was in-fact being bigoted, whether you like to admit it or not. You claim a bigot is someone with an "irrational" hate or fear of something, but this has never been the case, and even if it was, the subjectivity of the term and syntax overrides your objective. What you fail to see is that, you think people of conviction are irrational when opposing homosexual behavior, yet you provide no context for why they are. In the oldest version in English, the term bigot was defined as someone who holds a strong opinion of something in spite of evidence to the contrary. In this, and in many cases when the term is used today, rationale, and evidence are a matter of opinion, and such has effectively rendered the usage of bigot in this context as moot, or rhetorical. Why some continue to use it suggests that it provides them some internal higher authority over those that they oppose in debate, but this is imagined and self-imposed. It has no real truth basis, only subjective pre-confirmed biases.

You're welcome. ;)

Tim-
 
I read about this yesterday. Governor Pence I believe is the 31st governor to sign this type of legislation. It is basically the same legislation that Bill Clinton signed as Religious Freedom Act. What brought Indiana to this point had much to do with Obamacare and the legislation that forced religious organizations to provide services against their faith. Notre Dame was engaged in several lawsuits against the government over that issue. Then the several lawsuits against business owners being forced to provide services in regard to a marriage they find to be a sin. So states have been shoring up their laws to protect those of all faiths being forced to go against their moral conscience.
 
I agree..it's too subjective. ;)

No, not really. Let's have a multiple choice question:

Which one is the bigot?

A. An employer who fired a worker after he brought his gay partner to the annual Christmas party.
B. The CFO who quit in protest over the firing of his colleague.

Until sometime this century, everyone on planet earth would answer A. Not a single person would label those in category B as "bigots."

Now in an Orwellian exercise, you've redefined the word to include both groups. It's astounding really.
 
I consider anyone who was an adult during the fifties "old," since they grew up in a time I can't relate to, except in purely abstract terms.

So basically you're talking about dead people. :lol
 
I consider anyone who was an adult during the fifties "old," since they grew up in a time I can't relate to except in purely abstract terms.



82% of Republicans vs 36% of Democrats voted for prop 8. 85% of conservatives vs. 22% of liberals voted for prop 8. Opposition to ssm remains, for now, a Republican/conservative thing. Of course, these numbers are from 2008, so if the vote were held again today the Republican/conservative percentages would almost certainly be less extreme.

Edit: Yup, the percentages would be different. Opposition to ssm which almost certainly came mostly from conservatives, has dropped from 40% to 24%.

Civil Rights

I wasn't an adult in the fifties. I wasn't even born yet.

Most "conservatives" who are religious oppose SSM. So does the "older" generation. Most conservatives who are conservative but not having anything to do with religion feel as I do - who cares who loves and marries who?

But none of that is relevant when someone is trying to make the case that the "Republican base hates gays".
 
links? proof? facts? let me know when you have them
you really should pay attention to context and the actually discussion instead of your obsession with me always trying to get your first chck in the win column.

would you like my proof to get further destroyed?

i make widgets, you are a gay man, you walk in my store and want 500 widgets by 5:00, what law forces me to serve you cause you are gay. please state it in your next post or simply show honesty and integrity admit your clime is factually wrong

anything besides listing the law or admitting you are wrong will result in another failure of your claims and your posts losing to facts.

Im betting this is dodged or back peddled on who is in?

also to answer your question "right to contract" doesnt have anything to do with this but somebody made that false claim too

Laws don't say you must do something, they say what you are not allowed to do. Really dude? Another strawman fail.. Added to the list. You win in your mind because you have the questions all wrong. You start with the premise that laws make people do things, they do not, they provide a basis for what you may not do, and as a result, you do what you're allowed to do without doing anything that you are not allowed to do. In your scenario, YOU as the widget vendor are not allowed to not sell to him because he is specifically gay. In this sense, if you follow the law and do not want to break it, you must sell to him his 500 widgets, provided you have them in stock. You are legally barred from not selling them to him specifically because you suspect he is gay. Do you get it now? In order for you to grow in this discussion you must first understand what laws do and do not do. They do not say you are allowed to do certain things, they tell you what you are not allowed to do. In the case of the Constitution, they tell the government what they cannot do.

Light coming on yet? ;)

Tim-
 
So basically you're talking about seventy and eighty year olds :lol

Yeah, basically. People in their sixties (young adults during the 60's) came from a period and culture that isn't especially bizarre to me. I like their music, I get a lot of what was politically important to them, etc. But if you're going to tell me about bread lines, WWII or dust bowls, I just can't see that stuff unless it's in black and white photos.
 
And they still have the huge fine hanging over their heads, and didn't they have a nice little storefront before? Yeah, they are completely undamaged. :roll:

by their own doing i dont feel bad for criminals
 
It's not intended as a compliment, that's for sure, but it (WAS?) is a useful word to describe a person who is intolerant of people of different ethnic/religious/national origin/sexual orientation, etc. It was until recently universally understood to refer to, e.g., those defending Jim Crow laws in the South in the 1950s and NOT those working to overturn those laws. It would apply to a business owner with "WHITES ONLY" in the window and not a business owner who fires a waiter for refusing to wait on "fa*s or ni**ers" and whose restaurant welcomes anyone of any race, creed or color as customers. Etc.

Oh I know what it was intended as.

Speaking of Whites Only and redefining...

Adam Reposa Video Austin White-Only Stickers | Mediaite
 
Yeah, basically. People in their sixties (young adults during the 60's) came from a period and culture that isn't especially bizarre to me. I like their music, I get a lot of what was politically important to them, etc. But if you're going to tell me about bread lines, WWII or dust bowls, I just can't see that stuff unless it's in black and white photos.

Actually, I edited my post since I notice you were talking about adults in the 1950's. People that were born in the fifties more than likely didn't come to age until the seventies.
 
Laws don't say you must do something, they say what you are not allowed to do. Really dude? Another strawman fail.. Added to the list. You win in your mind because you have the questions all wrong. You start with the premise that laws make people do things, they do not, they provide a basis for what you may not do, and as a result, you do what you're allowed to do without doing anything that you are not allowed to do. In your scenario, YOU as the widget vendor are not allowed to not sell to him because he is specifically gay. In this sense, if you follow the law and do not want to break it, you must sell to him his 500 widgets, provided you have them in stock. You are legally barred from not selling them to him specifically because you suspect he is gay. Do you get it now? In order for you to grow in this discussion you must first understand what laws do and do not do. They do not say you are allowed to do certain things, they tell you what you are not allowed to do. In the case of the Constitution, they tell the government what they cannot do.

Light coming on yet? ;)

Tim-

wow I knew you would back pedal and dodge it LOL
like i said context and what is actually being discussed not your fantasies and lies. I suggest you read what others actually claimed and i proved wrong or you stop posting blatant lies. your claims are 100% false.
you said " You start with the premise that laws make people do things" ???what, i didnt claim that at all. if you disagree quote me saying that, you wont be able to and any attempts will be ANOTHER fail.
your post and claims lose and facts win . . . . again
thanks for playing
 
Last edited:
still dodging and posting lies i see. very telling you only quoted part of my post LMAO. You make it so easy
facts win aagain

I do not lie, so you can be sure that everything that I post is the truth or something that I believe. In this case, I am being factual by telling you that you didn't tell me what rights anti-discrimination laws protect.
 
Oh my gosh, 'a cartoon argument' - worse yet, its not even funny. Equally unfunny to Bowers is honesty:

"If I discriminate against or criticize you its called free speech, free association, and freedom of religion. If you return the sentiment and conduct, it is exactly the same thing". Persecution only occurs when someone repeatedly harasses or punishes another in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; to make someone suffer because of their belief. You know, like a founder of Mozilla "getting whacked (hounded into resigning) by the gay mafia" (Bill Mahr) .

You probably feel persecuted, don't you. You poor thing.

If there's anything that white conservative Christians excel at, it's having a persecution complex.
 
You probably feel persecuted, don't you. You poor thing.

If there's anything that white conservative Christians excel at, it's having a persecution complex.

That's pretty ironic considering a good part of your ideology is based on victimhood.
 
Back
Top Bottom