• 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

How would you suggest how one is chosen to be protected?

If it were me, I wouldn't give privilege to deviant behavior. You want to live your life outside the boundaries of normality, do it on your own without the help of our laws..
 
We're not working from a position of hate or denial, only protecting and maintaining an age old belief system we hold dear.

IMO, the homosexuals hate that belief system and wish it destroyed.

"the blacks" wished for an age old system to be destroyed.

how uppity, huh?
 
How does a law protect a right in the Constitution?

That is like saying the wax on your car gives you added protection to your seat belts and air bags.

On the state level. [see the 10th amendment which has been overlooked here] it does and should.
 
If it were me, I wouldn't give privilege to deviant behavior. You want to live your life outside the boundaries of normality, do it on your own without the help of our laws..

equality is now a "privelege"

maybe you should look up what that word actually means
 
There's no comparison there.


how in the world do you come to that conclusion, other than your own biases?

slavery is as old as the bible (if not more so)
"the blacks" were oppressed with it, especially in the early history of the usa
land owning "wasps" were essentially codified as THE protected class prior to the Civil War

it's a striking comparison, especially given your use of vile coded language
 
If it were me, I wouldn't give privilege to deviant behavior. You want to live your life outside the boundaries of normality, do it on your own without the help of our laws..

Why? Where in the Constitution does it say the laws are yours? Who are you to decide who protected under the Constitution.

Your Bible is yours. You have the right to believe and practice as you wish...except your Bible is not the Supreme Law of the land. The Constitution is.

You may not accept that fact, but that is neither here or there.

The Constitution is a work in progress. As it was meant to be.
 
how in the world do you come to that conclusion, other than your own biases?

slavery is as old as the bible (if not more so)
"the blacks" were oppressed with it, especially in the early history of the usa
land owning "wasps" were essentially codified as THE protected class prior to the Civil War

it's a striking comparison, especially given your use of vile coded language

I don't think the poster thinks in terms of blacks or Christians as being protected classes.
 
I don't think the poster thinks in terms of blacks or Christians as being protected classes.

I know what you're saying, it just (surprisingly so even after 26 years of being online in some form) boggles the mind some of the guano-crazy stuff that
people will come up with. I really, sadly, truly, think even though we have "progress", that society is devolving intellectually (Idiocracy, if you will)
 
How does a law protect a right in the Constitution?

That is like saying the wax on your car gives you added protection to your seat belts and air bags.

It does. People see you coming. ;)

Needless to say, Indiana's RFRA is getting a bad rap. I'm waiting for the protests in the 19 other states with the same law on the books, the additional 11 states that support the same via case law, and Federal act of the same name, but I'm not going to hold my breathe. Its the protest of the day, and next week when something new happens, all the neo-hippies will run to that cause.

The law doesn't protect ad-hoc discrimination, and it gives a clear avenue for normal, non-burdensome state interests to trump. I doubt anyone can point to where RFRA was used, in any state or federal case, for ad-hoc, "Not going to serve <insert group name> here!" discrimination.
 
Say a devout Muslim who believes homosexuality is wrong owns a quadriplex and occupies one of the units himself. Does a state law that requires him to rent to homosexuals violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why? And if it is not unconstitutional in that application, what if it required him to rent the other unit in a duplex he occupied to homosexuals? What if he is renting a room in the house he and his family live in? Can the implied constitutional right of privacy include the right to abortion, as the Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade, and yet not include a person's right to privacy at home with his family?

If discrimination against homosexuals is sheer bigotry, why tolerate it at all? Why not require people to include homosexuals in the people they invite to parties in their homes? Why not prohibit the local poker group or book club that meets in a member's house from excluding homosexuals? Why allow a person to discriminate against someone of the same sex in their choice of marriage partners? Would laws that did these things violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why?

The simple answer to your questions is that there are several rights and interests that come into conflict and the govt has the power to find the appropriate balance to use in order to resolve the conflict.

But you already know this.
 
Say a devout Muslim who believes homosexuality is wrong owns a quadriplex and occupies one of the units himself. Does a state law that requires him to rent to homosexuals violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why? And if it is not unconstitutional in that application, what if it required him to rent the other unit in a duplex he occupied to homosexuals?


did you have a stroke in the middle of composing this screed?
 
how in the world do you come to that conclusion, other than your own biases?

slavery is as old as the bible (if not more so)
"the blacks" were oppressed with it, especially in the early history of the usa
land owning "wasps" were essentially codified as THE protected class prior to the Civil War

it's a striking comparison, especially given your use of vile coded language

My people were oppressed with it but, the homosexuals can't say it's happened to them. None of it.

Maybe you should look up the word 'vile'.
 
Why? Where in the Constitution does it say the laws are yours? Who are you to decide who protected under the Constitution.

Your Bible is yours. You have the right to believe and practice as you wish...except your Bible is not the Supreme Law of the land. The Constitution is.

You may not accept that fact, but that is neither here or there.

The Constitution is a work in progress. As it was meant to be.

Oh yes, the 'living breathing document' meme. Talk about a slippery slope.
 
My people were oppressed with it but, the homosexuals can't say it's happened to them. None of it.

Maybe you should look up the word 'vile'.

"the homosexuals" can't say oppressions have happened to them?
you really ??? need examples to prove this wrong?


as to looking words up, I can and often do. I don't however need to look up vile, nor do I need to look up instances of usage of "the ___{insert group here}___" to determine intent.
Finally, it's funny you dodged the callout I gave you over your* use of the word "privilege" out of context. WHY is that?
 
We're not working from a position of hate or denial, only protecting and maintaining an age old belief system we hold dear.

IMO, the homosexuals hate that belief system and wish it destroyed.

That's an unfair stereotype. There are people of all types in any large group, but a fairer (IMO) characterization is they would like that old age belief system to tolerate them like it does adulterers, robbers, those who have premarital sex, the greedy, etc. The fact is some who adhere in that belief system want them criminalized and jailed for consensual acts, in some countries killed, in most places throughout most of history marginalized and removed from mainstream society. To the extent they want anything "destroyed" it's those beliefs, not your family or your church.

The part I've also never understood is also that those gays who want to get married are in fact embracing much of the Christian view of family - stability, monogamy, often children. They just are attracted to different people, but want many of the same things any family wants which is legal protections, spousal benefits, ability to act on behalf of their children and all the rest that comes with marriage. And it can be granted them without taking ANYTHING from my marriage or yours.
 
"the homosexuals" can't say oppressions have happened to them?
you really ??? need examples to prove this wrong?


as to looking words up, I can and often do. I don't however need to look up vile, nor do I need to look up instances of usage of "the ___{insert group here}___" to determine intent.
Finally, it's funny you dodged the callout I gave you over your* use of the word "privilege" out of context. WHY is that?

I didn't want to call it protections. IMO the only protection Homosexuals need is from themselves.
 
We're not working from a position of hate or denial, only protecting and maintaining an age old belief system we hold dear.

IMO, the homosexuals hate that belief system and wish it destroyed.


do you trim your hair or beard?
eat shellfish or pork?
have a flat nose?
wear clothes made of more than one fabric?
 
I didn't want to call it protections. IMO the only protection Homosexuals need is from themselves.

way to not answer the questions
and show your bigotry, to boot


I know you won't answer this, but what would God think of you CAPITALIZING 'Homosexuals'?
{I know what astute forum posters will note about you shifting away from 'the homos'}
 
That's an unfair stereotype. There are people of all types in any large group, but a fairer (IMO) characterization is they would like that old age belief system to tolerate them like it does adulterers, robbers, those who have premarital sex, the greedy, etc. The fact is some who adhere in that belief system want them criminalized and jailed for consensual acts, in some countries killed, in most places throughout most of history marginalized and removed from mainstream society. To the extent they want anything "destroyed" it's those beliefs, not your family or your church.

The part I've also never understood is also that those gays who want to get married are in fact embracing much of the Christian view of family - stability, monogamy, often children. They just are attracted to different people, but want many of the same things any family wants which is legal protections, spousal benefits, ability to act on behalf of their children and all the rest that comes with marriage. And it can be granted them without taking ANYTHING from my marriage or yours.

Christians don't 'tolerate' sin. They forgive the sinner. As a matter of fact they wage war on sin.

IMO, 'some' Christians [and those of other faiths] have become way too submissive in regards to 'tolerating' sin.

Jesus was crucified to take away our sins but, he said to go forth and sin NO MORE. Apparently some forgot that part.
 
It does. People see you coming. ;)

Needless to say, Indiana's RFRA is getting a bad rap. I'm waiting for the protests in the 19 other states with the same law on the books, the additional 11 states that support the same via case law, and Federal act of the same name, but I'm not going to hold my breathe. Its the protest of the day, and next week when something new happens, all the neo-hippies will run to that cause.

The law doesn't protect ad-hoc discrimination, and it gives a clear avenue for normal, non-burdensome state interests to trump. I doubt anyone can point to where RFRA was used, in any state or federal case, for ad-hoc, "Not going to serve <insert group name> here!" discrimination.

Yeah that is the right's narrative at the moment. Indiana's RFRA is an innocuous little law that wont harm a flea and what about all those other states with RFRAs...

My state is a RFRA state and is attempting to block my city's addition of LGBT persons to the city's ADL. For the AG to make that claim there has to be some law...some formal arrangement of ideas that my city has to be in violation of...

Why is the right running from the intent of this law? If the intent of the law is to not allow LGBT persons from bringing suit based on actions of a business owners or employers or state agencies....why not have the balls to claim the intent.

Ive never seen Republicans want to change the narrative so quickly.
 
Christians don't 'tolerate' sin. They forgive the sinner. As a matter of fact they wage war on sin.

IMO, 'some' Christians [and those of other faiths] have become way too submissive in regards to 'tolerating' sin.

Jesus was crucified to take away our sins but, he said to go forth and sin NO MORE. Apparently some forgot that part.

And apparently YOU FORGOT that your holy book says that first and foremost, you should leave judgement to a power above yourself
 
Yeah that is the right's narrative at the moment. Indiana's RFRA is an innocuous little law that wont harm a flea and what about all those other states with RFRAs...

My state is a RFRA state and is attempting to block my city's addition of LGBT persons to the city's ADL. For the AG to make that claim there has to be some law...some formal arrangement of ideas that my city has to be in violation of...

Why is the right running from the intent of this law? If the intent of the law is to not allow LGBT persons from bringing suit based on actions of a business owners or employers or state agencies....why not have the balls to claim the intent.

Ive never seen Republicans want to change the narrative so quickly.

I don't know what an ADL is, but feel free to point out a case where RFRA was successfully used to justify whatever discrimination you are referring to.

The intent of the law is pretty straightforward, since the same Federal law doesn't apply to most instances in the individual States. I don't know why you feel its directed at LGBT. Sounds like you are projecting your prejudices upon others.
 
Christians don't 'tolerate' sin. They forgive the sinner. As a matter of fact they wage war on sin.

IMO, 'some' Christians [and those of other faiths] have become way too submissive in regards to 'tolerating' sin.

Jesus was crucified to take away our sins but, he said to go forth and sin NO MORE. Apparently some forgot that part.

Evangelicals seem unable to separate the two...sin from sinner. Because most of their hate and discrimination is aimed right at the sinner. A sin can not order a cake. A sin can not order flowers.
 
Back
Top Bottom