• 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

$180,000 in a statewide vote in California is inconsequential decimal dust.

You stopped reading too early.

The point about black voters for Prop 8 is not that they were demographically different from others who voted as they did, but that only on this issue did they vote with old, white, conservative church-goers.

True. While it's certainly not a positive thing in this case, it certainly does refute the idea that blacks vote like the Borg on liberal issues.
 
In order to be tolerant, you have to be tolerant of people who hold a different perspective than you. Intolerance toward people you consider intolerant is indeed intolerance itself

Good to know, so those who oppose the KKK and other racist dirtbags are intolerant of intolerance and so intolerant, i.e. "bigots," and now the word has lost all meaning in common discourse. Hey, MLK was a bigot, same as George Wallace. The civil rights workers killed in Alabama were a bunch of bigots, same as the people who murdered them.... :shock::roll:
 
How so? There is nothing in it that is discriminating. It only re-instates what the federal government made claim to a couple of decades ago.

After Obamacare and their major college Notre Dame having countless law proceedings against the federal government that was forcing them to support certain things that was in violation of their faith. Like a lot of other states, they had everything from shelters, food banks, and other programs caring for shutins etc. closing down because they could not justify compromising their faith. The biggest losers were the communities that depend on the charities.

Then the attacks on people of faith who could not in moral conscience participate in a marriage they see as a sin.

Pence was either the 30th governor or the 31st that has done the same thing to shore up protection for the rights of the religious which have no particular political base.

I'm sure at this moment there are more on their knees thanking God for Pence then there are those who appose him.

Pence is a piece of ****. if someone doesn't understand or refuses to understand why kicking gay people out for being gay is a bad thing, i doubt that i can help.
 
this will be my last response to you, Jack, because i don't care about your opinion concerning any topic, to tell you the truth.

i don't support this **** at any level or from any party. this **** directly affects me because i live here. my state has been made into a joke, and i'm angry about it. they've passed a bill that allows businesses to kick out gay customers, which is just flat out ****ing stupid, as well as mean spirited. we don't do that in a modern first world country. a lot of people i know are really upset about it, and so am i. also, there is a boycott being organized, and we almost lost a fifty million dollar convention because of it. Indianapolis is scrambling to distance itself from the stupid ****ers in the statehouse. it was clear from the get go that this was going to be a mess if they passed it, but they did it anyway. this bill was passed as revenge for the recent legalization of gay marriage in Indiana.

the last thing that this state needs is a ****ing boycott. it's hard enough to make a living here already. those who want to boycott should be burning up the statehouse phone lines instead. eventually, the black eye will be enough to get the law repealed, but by then, the damage will be done.

you can get in the last response of our exchange. goodbye.

I know how much you dislike getting thoroughly schooled in debate, so I'm not surprised you're running away. I'm a native Hoosier myself, and quite proud of my native state. (I'm a firm supporter of SSM, btw.) This bill is like many others in many other states, not to mention the federal law. The only outrage is the faux kind generated by political poseurs. I'll be in Indiana over Labor Day weekend for a graduate school reunion, and I look forward to spending a little extra to help the state's economy.
 
You stopped reading too early.



True. While it's certainly not a positive thing in this case, it certainly does refute the idea that blacks vote like the Borg on liberal issues.

Individuals are free to donate as they wish, regardless of their religion.
 
Not at all disingenuous. The law is the law, and its authors are responsible and accountable.

You were dismissing any concerns about the application of the RFRA by pointing out democrats supported it. That's BS, or completely irrelevant, unless the sponsors and supporters at that time could contemplate this interpretation of it. No one did. And even if they did (which is laughable) it still has no bearing on how a person 22 years later interprets that act or how it's being used in 2015. If I'm a democrat, and some democrat or all democrats in 1993 supported something, I am not required to agree or hold to that view, nor am I a hypocrite if I come to different conclusions. I'm not bound by Schumer's opinions, today or from 1993. Your analysis is wrongheaded on every level. :naughty
 
You were dismissing any concerns about the application of the RFRA by pointing out democrats supported it. That's BS, or completely irrelevant, unless the sponsors and supporters at that time could contemplate this interpretation of it. No one did. And even if they did (which is laughable) it still has no bearing on how a person 22 years later interprets that act or how it's being used in 2015. If I'm a democrat, and some democrat or all democrats in 1993 supported something, I am not required to agree or hold to that view, nor am I a hypocrite if I come to different conclusions. I'm not bound by Schumer's opinions, today or from 1993. Your analysis is wrongheaded on every level. :naughty

Nowhere have I claimed the law is a good idea because of its Dem origin. That's merely a barrier against partisan hackery. I think the law is a good idea because I think it's a good idea.
 
Pence is a piece of ****. if someone doesn't understand or refuses to understand why kicking gay people out for being gay is a bad thing, i doubt that i can help.
But that is where you are wrong. Pence is not kicking out gay people. He is simply protecting the religious constitutional rights of his citizens because there seems to be a number of citizens willing to trample their rights in the name of "justice". It isn't justice when one has to forfeit their rights to another group. Now it looks like the gay couple will no longer be able to freely drag the cake decorator into court over their beliefs. With stronger state laws the justices will have to abide. And it serves as a protection against a federal government who at times doesn't think twice about trampling the rights of others as this current administration has shown it is willing to do.
 
You were dismissing any concerns about the application of the RFRA by pointing out democrats supported it. That's BS, or completely irrelevant, unless the sponsors and supporters at that time could contemplate this interpretation of it. No one did. And even if they did (which is laughable) it still has no bearing on how a person 22 years later interprets that act or how it's being used in 2015. If I'm a democrat, and some democrat or all democrats in 1993 supported something, I am not required to agree or hold to that view, nor am I a hypocrite if I come to different conclusions. I'm not bound by Schumer's opinions, today or from 1993. Your analysis is wrongheaded on every level. :naughty

This post will come in handy the next time a Democrat calls a Republican a hypocrite for not supporting the individual mandate because some now-retired Republican lawmakers supported it 20 years ago. Thanks. :thumbs: It will save me a lot of typing - just have to change a few names and a political party and the law name.

The RFRA was intended to preserve the religious freedom of the Native Americans. Are you saying that it's a crime that it's being applied to non-Native American religions now?
 
But that is where you are wrong. Pence is not kicking out gay people. He is simply protecting the religious constitutional rights of his citizens because there seems to be a number of citizens willing to trample their rights in the name of "justice". It isn't justice when one has to forfeit their rights to another group. Now it looks like the gay couple will no longer be able to freely drag the cake decorator into court over their beliefs. With stronger state laws the justices will have to abide. And it serves as a protection against a federal government who at times doesn't think twice about trampling the rights of others as this current administration has shown it is willing to do.

You can always count on the best hyperbole on this subject.
 
You can always count on the best hyperbole on this subject.
HI TRES, sure hope you don't see my posts as hyperbole. I want to see every person regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation to enjoy their inalienable rights afforded them. But I also want to see all groups in our society afford the right to be afforded those same inalienable rights regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. A little tolerance would go a long way about now.
 
HI TRES, sure hope you don't see my posts as hyperbole. I want to see every person regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation to enjoy their inalienable rights afforded them. But I also want to see all groups in our society afford the right to be afforded those same inalienable rights regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. A little tolerance would go a long way about now.

No, because I don't read your posts and think people are getting tossed out of buildings or thrown in gulags.
 
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....

The difference is that we don't tolerate laws that allow discrimination, but we do tolerate bigots. They on the other hand, don't want to tolerate homosexuals and want to use the law to punish them.
 
The difference is that we don't tolerate laws that allow discrimination, but we do tolerate bigots. They on the other hand, don't want to tolerate homosexuals and want to use the law to punish them.
The difference is that you think you have the right to someone else's labor.
 
The difference is that we don't tolerate laws that allow discrimination, but we do tolerate bigots. They on the other hand, don't want to tolerate homosexuals and want to use the law to punish them.

Wow, so you don't tolerate any laws that allow discrimination? I don't think you realize what you just said. :lol:
 
But that is where you are wrong. Pence is not kicking out gay people. He is simply protecting the religious constitutional rights of his citizens because there seems to be a number of citizens willing to trample their rights in the name of "justice". It isn't justice when one has to forfeit their rights to another group. Now it looks like the gay couple will no longer be able to freely drag the cake decorator into court over their beliefs. With stronger state laws the justices will have to abide. And it serves as a protection against a federal government who at times doesn't think twice about trampling the rights of others as this current administration has shown it is willing to do.

it's revenge for gay marriage. everyone knows it. the right has a lot of retreat positions, but this is a discriminatory law, and it was passed in response to gay marriage being made legal in Indiana.

however, gay marriage is still legal, and if the state loses enough money, the law will be repealed. because there's one thing that representatives on both sides value above all things : money and power.

and Pence is still a piece of ****. **** him.
 
The difference is that you think you have the right to someone else's labor.

According to the State, in many circumstances, we do. Failure to comply normally results in punishment.
 
The difference is that we don't tolerate laws that allow discrimination, but we do tolerate bigots. They on the other hand, don't want to tolerate homosexuals and want to use the law to punish them.


What was the motivation to create this law? Do you think it was from someone worrying about liberty? Or just plain hate?
 
In order to be tolerant, you have to be tolerant of people who hold a different perspective than you. Intolerance toward people you consider intolerant is indeed intolerance itself

We tolerate bigots. We don't tolerate bigoted laws.
 
And that's not liberty.

Call it what you must, but you live in this country and you will obey. Under the system you would have set up, only the acceptable will have civil society. This is because you have no conception of culture. You only see de Jure liberty.

When talking to libertarians, one must apply force to prevent the wanton destruction their ideas would cause should the world lose its sanity and actually embrace it.
 
it's revenge for gay marriage. everyone knows it. the right has a lot of retreat positions, but this is a discriminatory law, and it was passed in response to gay marriage being made legal in Indiana.

however, gay marriage is still legal, and if the state loses enough money, the law will be repealed. because there's one thing that representatives on both sides value above all things : money and power.

and Pence is still a piece of ****. **** him.

:lamo You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to forcing others to give up their constitutional rights afforded them to force what you think is just.

Because in doing so you make a mockery of the basis of our whole government. We all have inalienable rights and among those rights are religious freedoms. Gays, straights, blacks, whites, orange because of eating too many carrots, green because of too much broccoli, all share these rights. We would be wise to stand up for all people and not just a select few.
 
The difference is that you think you have the right to someone else's labor.

If they operate their business as a public accomodation, I do have a right to their labor.

And that's not liberty.

Libertarians usually have a morally perverse concept of liberty

What was the motivation to create this law? Do you think it was from someone worrying about liberty? Or just plain hate?



hate
 
Back
Top Bottom