• 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

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.



>>>>


"The law says!" isn't always the most productive way to argue things. That doesn't shut down a debate. For instance, if every time someone complained about businesses being involved in political campaigns, someone else could scream "Citizen's United!", and end the debate right there.

Opinions are actually very relevant to these discussions, IMO. Just because a law says "x" doesn't mean that it's 100% right or shouldn't be up for debate.
 
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.

I never said sexual orientation was analogous to race. I wasn't posting about race.
 
I never said sexual orientation was analogous to race. I wasn't posting about race.

i said that sexual orientation is analogous to race. should a shop owner be able to kick out blacks for being black?
 
translation: you still cant show any contradiction because it was made up

1.) already explained it, they chose to be criminals and chose to break the law
2.) reposting this lie wont work i have answered it this post and post 1430. 1424, 1405, 1290 and 741
not liking the answer and the facts doesnt change the reality it was answered

in the next post please point out the false contraindication that was claimed, thanks
act remains
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota

Apparently you're choosing to call them criminals rather than Christians. I knew there was a semantics game in there somewhere
 
i said that sexual orientation is analogous to race. should a shop owner be able to kick out blacks for being black?

If you want to talk about race, you'll have to find someone else to do it. You said yourself this bill was about gay people and religion, not race.

I'll say it one more time. The law should require that everyone be served by someone who demands their labor, or the laws should be changed to leave it up to the business owner who presumably wants to stay in business and have a good business model.
 
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


You left out Section 9:

"Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been
substantiallyburdened, or islikely tobe substantiallyburdened,by
a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending
violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other
governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."​


This provides that religious beliefs (as defined earlier) are a valid defense in claims between two persons (which also previously defined includes business entities). In plan English that means if a Muslim cab driver refused service to a blind person because they have a service dog (and yes that has happened, Minnesota Cab Driver case) , the owner can claim a religious objection to Jews and under this law it is a legal defense.


https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf

>>>>
 
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

well this premise would only have merit if:
there was actually force, theres not
gay people wanted more than equal rights, they dont
if gay peoples rights were superseding others, they dont

thr same silly irrational and false claims were made when states tried banning gay marriage, it failed

I welcome all these bigoted and or fear moves though because just like banning it will HELP establish equal rights in the end, its sweet irony.
 
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.

If you don't know, you're not looking. And it's odd that you think the LBGT community should ignore that open anti-gay bigots are pushing the law. Those folks are not like you. They do care and make a big deal out of telling us all they care and that defeat of the "homosexual agenda" is their goal.

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.

That's generally true, and I imagine in NE it's undoubtedly true. Most if not all of the NE has had laws protecting LGBT for a decade or more, so it's in the business DNA up there. It's different in the South, and it's a good thing people are pushing back against those WHO TELL US they're trying to drag us backwards in time.
 
If you want to talk about race, you'll have to find someone else to do it. You said yourself this bill was about gay people and religion, not race.

I'll say it one more time. The law should require that everyone be served by someone who demands their labor, or the laws should be changed to leave it up to the business owner who presumably wants to stay in business and have a good business model.

you've dodged the question twice now, so i'll answer it.

no, it should not be ok to kick out a black guy for being black. and no, it should not be ok to kick a gay guy out for being gay. if a church doesn't want to perform a gay wedding, fine. a lunch counter is not a church.
 
If you don't know, you're not looking. And it's odd that you think the LBGT community should ignore that open anti-gay bigots are pushing the law. Those folks are not like you. They do care and make a big deal out of telling us all they care and that defeat of the "homosexual agenda" is their goal.



That's generally true, and I imagine in NE it's undoubtedly true. Most if not all of the NE has had laws protecting LGBT for a decade or more, so it's in the business DNA up there. It's different in the South, and it's a good thing people are pushing back against those WHO TELL US they're trying to drag us backwards in time.

And I encourage people in the LGBT community to advance their "agenda". I have agendas too, in the animal rights world, and I would hope that people wish me luck in advancing my agendas as well. People should have passions about causes.
 
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.
Whether sexual orientation is analogous to race with respect to public accommodations depends on what the law is in a particular state.
 
1.)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.
2.)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.

1.) dont believe anybody said its "ok" its just not illegal and doesnt violate your rights in some cases, huge difference
2.) well thats irrational because theres nothing to base that on, no rights or law and secondly reality proves that the market will not always do that

its easier to just simply stick to equal rights and protecting them
 
you've dodged the question twice now, so i'll answer it.

no, it should not be ok to kick out a black guy for being black. and no, it should not be ok to kick a gay guy out for being gay. if a church doesn't want to perform a gay wedding, fine. a lunch counter is not a church.

I "dodged" the question because I'm on topic. This isn't about being black. It's about businesses being allowed to decline service to gay people under the guise of religion.
 
no slippery slope. it's wrong to kick gay people out of restaurants for being gay, and it shouldn't be state sanctioned. the law is revenge for gay marriage being legal in Indiana. pure and simple.

What's wrong is to tell a business he can't refuse service to someone for whatever reasons he chooses
 
****, i don't know. you tell me. my point is that sexual orientation is analogous to race, not analogous to being a ****ing nazi.
Then why are so many homosexuals acting like Nazis?
 
1.)Apparently you're choosing to call them criminals rather than Christians.
2.) I knew there was a semantics game in there somewhere

translation: a contradiction still cant be shown, thats what i thought

1.) thats not a choice its a fact.
if they were JUST Christian then nothing happens but since they are criminals something does, Logic 101 LOL
2.) his claim keeps being made and this game keep sbeing played but cant it support it with one fact

fact remains
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota
 
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.
Typically, it's not okay to kick people for these reasons - although those pertaining to personal hygiene are probably accepted in most states because an argument can be made that their presence hurts business.
 
It does say the government can not prohibit the exercise of religion. Telling wedding chapples, wedding cake makers and etc that they have to perform a gay wedding, make a gay wedding cake and ect is a violation of their 1st amendment right to exercise their religion.

Jesus often ate dinner with criminals. Jesus ate with prostitutes. But, I'm not aware that Jesus said jack about not selling a cake to a gay person. Pence and his paranoid legislators would actually do something positive if they permitted food establishments not to sell fattening food to fatties. Gluttony is a biblical sin. As such the paranoid practitioners of protestantism could get their discrimination fix while helping to trim populace, reduce health care costs and save lives.

Here's my point, if a person is going to get all butt hurt about his faith then that person had best carry his hatred across the board and apply hate equally as dictated by their particular religion. Gluttony is a sin. Interestingly enough it is usually members of churches that practice strict interpretation of sin who have the fattest congregations.

Is there a biblical sin list where LGBT is ranked? I haven't seen one. Might we then be urged to love the fat people but hate pizza and chocolate easter eggs? No, probably not. There's simply too many fat people to seriously begin hating them.
 
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.

Your preferences don't matter. Not everyone is like you. The supporters of the Indiana law are proud to have opinions 180 degrees different than you. It's they, the proudly anti-SSM/gay evangelicals, the LGBT is worried about, not socially liberal libertarian types.

Should it be legal for an employer to have a DADT employment policy? It's a simple question.

And what you have to recognize is you may disagree with the anti-SSM/gay crowd, but you're supporting policies they support for the purpose of discriminating against LBGT - that's what they tell us their goal is.
 
And the tourism revenue in Arizona is up.

If you're talking about the Phoenix Convention Center, the bookings have gone up every year from the year they went down, and they also attribute that to the competition from the other new convention centers, including the ones in San Diego and a few other western cities, which have remained flat in bookings.

It had an impact because people want to make a "statement". I guess Brewer and Pence are politicians who don't respond to threats or bribes of revenue in order to pass laws that they believe in.

I'm really not sure what you're saying. Should gays be criminalized and jailed in this "war?" Is it OK to fire them from their jobs for being gay, ostracized from normal society? Denied service at restaurants? Etc.

But you're illustrating pretty well the intolerance that gays want to "destroy." Essentially, your religious beliefs are yours and those who adhere to similar values. In a theocracy, you get to impose those views on all others. In our diverse society that values individual freedom, the right to worship your God, other gods, or no god at all is pretty high on our list of national values.



To be blunt, what Jesus said only matters to Christians, and there is obviously a pretty large variation among Christians on what constitutes a sin. As you know there are churches who accept homosexuals. My gay brother has gone to church his entire life. Do you get veto power over those churches?

Bump me later with this.. on my Kindle and have several comments
 
You left out Section 9:

"Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been
substantiallyburdened, or islikely tobe substantiallyburdened,by
a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending
violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other
governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."​


This provides that religious beliefs (as defined earlier) are a valid defense in claims between two persons (which also previously defined includes business entities). In plan English that means if a Muslim cab driver refused service to a blind person because they have a service dog (and yes that has happened, Minnesota Cab Driver case) , the owner can claim a religious objection to Jews and under this law it is a legal defense.


https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf

>>>>



No I didn't leave it out, that was all that was printed up with the link. As it directly correlated to the issue. But then the Pro Gay Rights Attorney and Law Professor helped put it into the perspective that it really is.




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.

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.

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~
 
Typically, it's not okay to kick people for these reasons - although those pertaining to personal hygiene are probably accepted in most states because an argument can be made that their presence hurts business.

Sure you can. In fact, one of my friends who owns a café refused to serve 2 big fat guys wearing "PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals" shirts last year. She told them why she was doing it too. Then she called a lawyer friend of ours and asked if she broke a law. She told her "Nope".
 
And I encourage people in the LGBT community to advance their "agenda". I have agendas too, in the animal rights world, and I would hope that people wish me luck in advancing my agendas as well. People should have passions about causes.

That's what they're doing by calling out anti-gay bigots and the laws they're pushing for what they are. Glad they have your support!
 
Back
Top Bottom