• 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

And I was born blonde, but because I'm not in the "protected class", I can be denied service strictly because of the fact that the business owner doesn't want to serve blondes.

This issue has nothing to do with birth.

blonde is not a protected class but you are in many protected classes ALL OF US are, they protect us all.
 
So what - I don't either but it's a word I hear fairly frequently in my part of the world and is how a bigot commonly refers to homosexuals, which is why I used that term.



OK, so you're not going to address the point. Obviously the work environment I described isn't mythical. It's reality in many areas and an obvious reason why tolerant places like California attract gays from the intolerant 'heartland.' Being gay and out is still committing career suicide in many places. Much of that won't change until attitudes change, but I see no reason for the law to allow for terminations based on race, religion, national origin OR sexual orientation. Maybe you do. If so I disagree.

But let's put it this way. DADT was an institutionalized version of that. If a person was found to be gay, it was grounds for immediate discharge from the armed forces, even for a person with a spotless record, 19 years towards a 20 year retirement.

1) Do you support DADT?
2) Do you support private businesses having a DADT policy?

What does DADT have to do with my post? I'm talking about businesses being compelled to serve people who demand that they serve them, or engage in commerce with them, etc.
 
blonde is not a protected class but you are in many protected classes ALL OF US are, they protect us all.

I know it isn't a protected class. In other words, a baker can refuse to serve me because I'm blonde. A baker can't refuse to serve me because I'm gay.

In other words, businesses can refuse service all day long - and they do. They just can't do it for a reason that is covered by "protected class". Being a pubic accommodation has nothing to do with it. The law doesn't require that anyone and everyone serve the public.
 
You can tell if someone is gay just by looking at them?

In many cases, of course you can. Maybe not just by "looking at them" but in ordinary conversation and interactions we all provide many clues in a very short time that tell the world who we are. I'm not sure what the point is.
 
What does DADT have to do with my post? I'm talking about businesses being compelled to serve people who demand that they serve them, or engage in commerce with them, etc.

Employment is a part of commerce. And DADT (either explicit like the military or implicit such as exists in many businesses) is exactly the environment that you either support or don't. If you'd rather not take your conclusions to somewhere that you find uncomfortable or aren't willing to defend, maybe rethink your conclusions.
 
1.)I know it isn't a protected class. In other words, a baker can refuse to serve me because I'm blonde. A baker can't refuse to serve me because I'm gay.
2.)In other words, businesses can refuse service all day long - and they do.
3.) They just can't do it for a reason that is covered by "protected class".
4.) Being a pubic accommodation has nothing to do with it.
5.) The law doesn't require that anyone and everyone serve the public.

1.) then why bring it up?, yes you are correct, in many areas you it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orentation
2.) correct they do
3.) also correct
4.) 100% false because that's a major part of dictating what discrimination policy's apply. For example if I just fix cars in my back garage i can most certainly not fix cars of anybody i want. But if i have a corner shop/business that is PA then things change
5.) correct, as you wrote it, the law does not require that
 
In many cases, of course you can. Maybe not just by "looking at them" but in ordinary conversation and interactions we all provide many clues in a very short time that tell the world who we are. I'm not sure what the point is.

Blacks and gays are not the same kind of discrimination. Blacks largely cannot walk into a business that doesn't serve blacks and get away with it. A gay person can walk into a business that discriminates against gays and be served because while they may choose to act a certain way or say things to reveal their sexuality, nobody is going to 100% know they are gay like they would a black person, especially since pretty much everybody who doesn't live a a cave or a small town knows guys who are super fem or women who are very butch who are straight.
 
Then take it up with Pence. I'm talking about a much larger issue. You don't see a slippery slope and I do. It has nothing to do with being gay. It has to do with being able to walk away from an offer of commerce with anyone who you don't want to do business with, without the government compelling you to accept an offer of commerce with who the laws deem deserving of your work.

this has everything to do with gay people. it's why they passed the law.
 
And I was born blonde, but because I'm not in the "protected class", I can be denied service strictly because of the fact that the business owner doesn't want to serve blondes.

This issue has nothing to do with birth.

it has everything to do with birth. did you choose to be straight like you chose your hair color? do you think you could choose to be gay today if you wanted to? are you actually equating sexual orientation with something as trivial as hair color?
 
If my kid was gay, I'd love him to death. I have 3 sons and any one of them can be gay for all I know. If my sons were kicked out of a restaurant because the owner didn't want to serve them for any reason, that would bother me. People can kick anyone out of a restaurant. They just can't kick them out and say "I did this because you're (insert protected class here)".

I don't care who is gay and who is straight. I don't care if you want one wife, one same sex partner, or 15 wives. As long as people are of age, they should be able to marry or love who they chose, just as I did, and just as you have. People's preferences of love partners are, IMO, none of my business and none of anyone else's business.

You've said that before, but the problem is the people pushing for the RFRA laws do care, and they are public and proud of that, and they want to make who they love and marry and have sex with their business. It took a divided SC to overturn laws that make consensual sex a criminal act. That's who the LGBT community is going against and that other side isn't shy about stating their goals or their unqualified opposition to the "homosexual agenda."

I'm a slippery slope girl. The law is on a slippery slope here. I've already used some examples. Because people don't want to debate without name calling, people assume I'm being anti-gay.

Not necessarily, just willing to accept denying gays and others equal treatment in the marketplace, so presumably you'd support Jim Crow policies (not the laws but businesses hanging "Whites Only" signs) with no regard to how those policies cemented blacks in the South as second class citizens in practice. It's more naive than anything IMO.
 


Where does it say it can discriminate?



This ignorance of the law was exuded during the Hobby Lobby case last summer. Also, it’s worth noting (again) that RFRA isn’t a “blank check” to discriminate.

Here’s RFRA:
(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.


Here’s Indiana’s law:
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest......snip~

Oh Dear: The Liberal Hysteria Over Indiana
 
it has everything to do with birth. did you choose to be straight like you chose your hair color? do you think you could choose to be gay today if you wanted to? are you actually equating sexual orientation with something as trivial as hair color?

If you can find a post from me where I said anything about being gay or straight being a choice, your post would be relevant. But since I never did, I have no clue whatsoever why you posted this.

You kept bringing up "birth" and "choice" in your posts to me. They have nothing to do with what I'm posting about, which is businesses. But since you seem to think I believe being gay or straight is a choice, I'll tell you now how wrong you are. I never said that, never implied it, and as a matter of fact, never even thought it.
 
You've said that before, but the problem is the people pushing for the RFRA laws do care, and they are public and proud of that, and they want to make who they love and marry and have sex with their business. It took a divided SC to overturn laws that make consensual sex a criminal act. That's who the LGBT community is going against and that other side isn't shy about stating their goals or their unqualified opposition to the "homosexual agenda."



Not necessarily, just willing to accept denying gays and others equal treatment in the marketplace, so presumably you'd support Jim Crow policies (not the laws but businesses hanging "Whites Only" signs) with no regard to how those policies cemented blacks in the South as second class citizens in practice. It's more naive than anything IMO.

I don't know who's pushing for the RFRA laws. That was a law that the Democrats and the ACLU championed. If it isn't working out for people the way they expected it to, they need to redo it.

Jim Crow laws were before my time. Can you stay in 2015 with me please? This isn't about Jim Crow laws. But if a business owner decided he wanted to hang a sign that said "whites only", that would be his choice in this day and age. With the 24 hour media, chances are he wouldn't be in business very long. If a business owner wanted to hang a sign that says "people who have pre marital sex are sinners and will not be served", legally he could do that, but his business would suffer too.
 
Again!




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~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/midwe...ous-freedom-restoration-act-explained-12.html



Daniel O. Conkle

Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies.....

Education B.A. at Ohio State University, 1976 J.D. at Ohio State University, 1979Courses Constitutional Law I (B513)Constitutional Law II (B668)Seminar in Law and Religion (L799).....snip~

http://info.law.indiana.edu/faculty-research/faculty-staff/profiles/faculty/conkle-daniel-o.shtml
 
Last edited:
Where does it say it can discriminate?



This ignorance of the law was exuded during the Hobby Lobby case last summer. Also, it’s worth noting (again) that RFRA isn’t a “blank check” to discriminate.

Here’s RFRA:
(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.


Here’s Indiana’s law:
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest......snip~

Oh Dear: The Liberal Hysteria Over Indiana

many conservatives are scrambling to defend this piece of **** bill, and it's sad. read up again :

A Pagan Lawyer’s Take on Indiana’s “Religious Right to Discriminate Law”
 
Blacks and gays are not the same kind of discrimination. Blacks largely cannot walk into a business that doesn't serve blacks and get away with it. A gay person can walk into a business that discriminates against gays and be served because while they may choose to act a certain way or say things to reveal their sexuality, nobody is going to 100% know they are gay like they would a black person, especially since pretty much everybody who doesn't live a a cave or a small town knows guys who are super fem or women who are very butch who are straight.

I don't agree that the discrimination is of a different kind, or different in kind but not in the substance of the harm. I can't see how it's any easier or harder to identify someone as gay or a Jew, but societies have found it quite easy to discriminate against and persecute both for thousands of years.

Of course someone dedicated to hiding the fact he or she is gay/Jewish can get away with it for quite a while - a lifetime I imagine for some - but that's not what we're talking about. If someone is open and gay, that's not a particularly difficult thing to figure out in a whole lot of ordinary interactions. I know I've done it hundreds of times.
 
If you can find a post from me where I said anything about being gay or straight being a choice, your post would be relevant. But since I never did, I have no clue whatsoever why you posted this.

You kept bringing up "birth" and "choice" in your posts to me. They have nothing to do with what I'm posting about, which is businesses. But since you seem to think I believe being gay or straight is a choice, I'll tell you now how wrong you are. I never said that, never implied it, and as a matter of fact, never even thought it.

ok, we agree that it's not a choice. do we also agree that a restaurant owner shouldn't be able to kick out a gay man for being gay any more than he should be allowed to kick a black man out for being black?
 
Employment is a part of commerce. And DADT (either explicit like the military or implicit such as exists in many businesses) is exactly the environment that you either support or don't. If you'd rather not take your conclusions to somewhere that you find uncomfortable or aren't willing to defend, maybe rethink your conclusions.

So again, what does DADT have to do with my post? I don't care about DADT. I don't care about anyone's sexual preferences, and never did. Just like I don't care if the CEO of IBM likes to be tied up and whipped by his hairdresser wearing a Wonder Woman costume. Who people love and who they want to have sex with isn't my business - never was.
 
If you can find a post from me where I said anything about being gay or straight being a choice, your post would be relevant. But since I never did, I have no clue whatsoever why you posted this.

You kept bringing up "birth" and "choice" in your posts to me. They have nothing to do with what I'm posting about, which is businesses. But since you seem to think I believe being gay or straight is a choice, I'll tell you now how wrong you are. I never said that, never implied it, and as a matter of fact, never even thought it.

his point is your comparisons to other things are not analogous. Those questions are to help you see that what you are asking doesnt make sense towards the topic and are not the same. He is trying to teach.
he never suggested you think its a choice in anyway.
 
my two cents

i saw this coming a while back.....and mentioned it in a few threads

you can only push your POV onto others for so long, and so far, before there is a push back

we are still are a christian nation....whether or not some of you like that idea

and "forcing" people to participate in things that go against what they believe, is going to case backlash

when it comes to bakeries, florists, and wedding chapels.....there is always someone else willing to get the business

when it comes to other things.....hotels, taxis, hospitals, etc....sometimes there isnt a choice

i know....some of you will come back, well then "dont open a public store"

when your rights start superseding someone else's, there will be issues

the governor, and the state here, finally said enough is enough
 
I don't agree with special exemptions for religious claims either. That's my entire argument. Nobody should be getting special treatment or the right to comply or deny service - on either side.

Either serve everyone, or do what you suggested here (which is a good suggestion, BTW).



Sometimes people don't understand discussing how a law actually functions and what a law (if any) should be. What is and what (in that persons opinion) should be are two different discussions. They think (often) that their opinion of what should be is actually the way it is, which is an error.



>>>>
 
ok, we agree that it's not a choice. do we also agree that a restaurant owner shouldn't be able to kick out a gay man for being gay any more than he should be allowed to kick a black man out for being black?

But it's okay to kick me out because I'm blonde, or because I smell like cigarettes, or because I pick my nose at the table, or because he doesn't feel like serving me, or because I look like the teenager who broke his heart, or because my brother took his place on the basketball team, or because......the list goes on endlessly.

Either make it a rule that he has to serve everyone, or know that the market will ferret out people who have stupid business models.
 
Last edited:
But it's okay to kick me out because I'm blonde, or because I smell like cigarettes, or because I pick my nose at the table, or because he doesn't feel like serving me, or because I look like the teenager who broke his heart, or because my brother took his place on the basketball team, or because......the list goes on endlessly.

Either make it a rule that he has to serve everyone, or know that the market will ferret out people who have stupid business models.

once again, the traits you listed are not analogous to sexual orientation. sexual orientation is analogous to race. if it's not ok to kick out a black guy for being black, then it's not ok to kick out a gay guy for being gay.
 
Back
Top Bottom