• 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

Cryptic said:
Why? The Mormons were free to oppose SSM (religous teaching) and retain their tax exemption. I think you are confusing your personal opposition to the Mormon's activities with the conclusion that they must have violated the law.
Click to expand...

Not at all. A religion is not allowed to use its pulpit to lobby for candidates and legislation. The church funded the measure, pressured its members to make large donations and lied and hid the costs of their activities. Lying "in the name of God" is still lying.
 
Samhain said:
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.
Click to expand...

ADL Anti-discrimination laws.

That is not correct. For one you have no way of knowing how the law will be applied. As I stated my state is attempting to use the RFRA law to block cities from extending ADL to LGBT persons.

I've read Indiana SB 101...It states that no government entity [city...ect ] may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion. That means if a city[or any governmental agency] writes LGBT anti-discrimination protections and fines any one or business in violation of those ADL. The person or business could sue and judges would use the state's RFRA as judicial reasoning. That is if the city or other Indiana governmental agency woul;d be sued by the state first.

Indiana’s legislative leaders said Monday they will encourage lawmakers to clarify the state’s controversial Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which opponents say paves the way for gay and lesbian and other groups to be denied services by business owners who feel such lifestyles go against their religious beliefs. Indiana State Senate Pro Tem David Long and House Speaker David Bosma, both Republicans, said the new law has been “misconstrued” by opponents and the legislation does not open the door to discrimination.
Click to expand...
Indiana 'Anti LGBT' Law Update: SB 101 Clarification Sought By Lawmakers After RFRA Backlash

Gov Pence will never come out and tell the world that LBGT have never had protections in Indiana. He will eventually have to tell the world this law does nothing to protect LGBT persons in Indiana.
 
Last edited:
Blemonds said:
That is exactly what is happening in America. If you want to run your business according to your Christian beliefs, you can literally be forced out of business. That form of discrimination is celebrated by liberals all across America
Click to expand...
Bull crap. There are ways for all the ignorant bigots, religious zealots and other douche bags to set up businesses so they can only deal with like minded morons.
 
Helix said:
in respect to reality, it doesn't depend.
Click to expand...
On that note, perhaps your argument would hold more weight in a thread concerned with ontology than one concerned with public accommodations law.
 
Helix said:
apparently, he just signed it. Pence is a horrible governor, and this is a national embarrassment. one major convention has already indicated that it will move, and Indiana could potentially lose sporting events. major employers were against it, too. it's going to eventually get tossed out, but not before the economic damage has been done.

most businesses aren't going to start denying services to gay people, because that would be a ****ing stupid business decision. this is just for a few people who don't want to hand out birth control pills, and a few others who don't like homosexuals. it's an utterly useless and hurtful law. i hope this causes Hoosiers to wake the **** up and take a close look at who they're voting for.
Click to expand...
I have always believed that our government, at any and all levels is a direct reflection on who and what we are at that level. Pence IS Indiana's governor a reflection of the people of Indiana. If that is not the case there would be a motion to recall.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your position is that it is just as easy to spot a gay person as a black person. If you are going to be that dishonest then have a nice day.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, all your questions were hyperbolic and didn't actually address what you were responding to. YOU created the argument that Grim was making because his actual argument didn't seem to suit you.
Click to expand...

You don't like the questions I asked because they point up that when taken far enough, laws that force people to interact with homosexuals in rental housing and public accommodations will be unconstitutional--and therefore unenforceable. The two grounds my questions were getting at were: they violate the First Amendment freedom of association; and they violate the implied constitutional right to personal privacy.

If anyone wants to claim people should rent to homosexuals just because it's the right thing to do, fine with me. I don't have any moral convictions about the matter one way or the other. When it comes to matters that are regulated by laws, I don't think it accomplishes much to offer personal opinions about what's right or wrong. When all is said and done, all that counts is who can enforce what against whom.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your posts reflect the mindset of the anti-liberal, someone who doesn't actually believe in anything, but just rallies against things. Anything to attack anything that doesn't suit your agenda, and misrepresent anything that you can't argue against reasonably. This is the failing of the extreme conservative.
Click to expand...

actually not.. my view is pretty much main stream blue collar America...

we dont trust the liberal agenda.. nobody should
 
matchlight said:
You don't like the questions I asked because they point up that when taken far enough, laws that force people to interact with homosexuals in rental housing and public accommodations will be unconstitutional--and therefore unenforceable. The two grounds my questions were getting at were: they violate the First Amendment freedom of association; and they violate the implied constitutional right to personal privacy.

If anyone wants to claim people should rent to homosexuals just because it's the right thing to do, fine with me. I don't have any moral convictions about the matter one way or the other. When it comes to matters that are regulated by laws, I don't think it accomplishes much to offer personal opinions about what's right or wrong. When all is said and done, all that counts is who can enforce what against whom.
Click to expand...

exactly.... and well said..
 
prometeus said:
I have always believed that our government, at any and all levels is a direct reflection on who and what we are at that level. Pence IS Indiana's governor a reflection of the people of Indiana. If that is not the case there would be a motion to recall.
Click to expand...

i don't believe that we can recall him. he's governor because there was a lot of apathy and because his opponent, nice guy that he was / is, ran a really poor campaign.
 
Taylor said:
Yes, establishments often can enforce "dress codes" - ties, jackets, no sandals, no shorts, no t-shirts, etc.

That is different than "we don't serve blondes" or "get out of here you look like my ex-girlfriend".
Click to expand...

There is no "dress code". She told them she wasn't going to do business with them because she loves animals. She refused to serve people in the past who park outside with dead deer on the trucks too. No difference at all. They aren't welcome there even with different shirts.

You can decline service to people for any reason. If you're a hairdresser, nobody can come in and demand that you cut their hair and you have to do it. If you're an accountant, nobody can come in and demand that you do their taxes and you have to do it. There are no laws that say you must serve just anyone who wants to be served. There are laws that say "You must serve (insert protected class here)."
 
Declan said:
Your position is that it is just as easy to spot a gay person as a black person. If you are going to be that dishonest then have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a pretty hilariously dishonest characterization of what I said. I never said anything of the sort.

Here's my quote, again:

1) 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.
Click to expand...

The part I bolded just completely and obviously CANNOT be interpreted by anyone as "it's just as easy to spot a gay person as a black person." Do what you want, but it's not because I've been dishonest. You somehow completely misread my post or we're talking past each other, or there's some other huge disconnect. Not sure....
 
Helix said:
kicking out a gay person for being gay is the same thing as kicking out a black person for being black.
Click to expand...

And it's the same thing as kicking a woman out for being woman, and it's the same thing as kicking a handicapped person out for being handicapped, and it's the same thing as kicking an elderly man out because he's elderly, and it's the same thing as kicking a Japanese American out because he's Japanese American. We can come up with all the comparisons in the world. Fun!
 
disneydude said:
Not at all. A religion is not allowed to use its pulpit to lobby for candidates and legislation. The church funded the measure, pressured its members to make large donations and lied and hid the costs of their activities. Lying "in the name of God" is still lying.
Click to expand...

Then you must hate the Clintons and Obama
 
matchlight said:
You don't like the questions I asked because they point up that when taken far enough, laws that force people to interact with homosexuals in rental housing and public accommodations will be unconstitutional--and therefore unenforceable. The two grounds my questions were getting at were: they violate the First Amendment freedom of association; and they violate the implied constitutional right to personal privacy.

If anyone wants to claim people should rent to homosexuals just because it's the right thing to do, fine with me. I don't have any moral convictions about the matter one way or the other. When it comes to matters that are regulated by laws, I don't think it accomplishes much to offer personal opinions about what's right or wrong. When all is said and done, all that counts is who can enforce what against whom.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have no opinion on whether I liked or didn't like your questions. I would have preferred them to be on topic and not misrepresent the position of the poster of whom you quoted.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, I have no opinion on whether I liked or didn't like your questions. I would have preferred them to be on topic and not misrepresent the position of the poster of whom you quoted.
Click to expand...

again.. Match was on topic.. its you who just cant "get it" or "understand"..
 
Travis007 said:
actually not.. my view is pretty much main stream blue collar America...

we dont trust the liberal agenda.. nobody should
Click to expand...

No, your position is anti-liberal and really holds no actual agenda. It disagrees. That's about it. No one should trust an agenda that is nothing more than contrarian, which is all that folks like you profess.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, your position is anti-liberal and really holds no actual agenda. It disagrees. That's about it. No one should trust an agenda that is nothing more than contrarian, which is all that folks like you profess.
Click to expand...

"it disagrees",,, what is it?

again religious freedom to liberals is not what they support
 
Travis007 said:
again.. Match was on topic.. its you who just cant "get it" or "understand"..
Click to expand...

No, match was not on topic. Of course, you don't care because you aren't either. You just want to spew your "I hate liberals" comments whether it has anything to do with what we are discussing or not. Now, I'll ask AGAIN... do you have anything reasonable to say, or do you just want to discuss your anti-liberal agenda?
 
Travis007 said:
"it disagrees",,, what is it?

again religious freedom to liberals is not what they support
Click to expand...

This is classic Travis dishonesty and exemplifies precisely what I have been saying about your anti-liberal agenda who's sole purpose is just to disagree. Why don't you tell me what MY position on religious freedom is. Let's see you prove me right.
 
So if two dudes walk into My convenient store in Indiana, and I'm an evangelical type, Am I now within the law to assume that they're gay and throw them out. How do I know that they're gay? Should men not visit places of business in pairs now? or Women? What if I toss out two guys that I assume are gay and they're not, can they sue me? Does my religion protect me from making assumptions about people?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, match was not on topic. Of course, you don't care because you aren't either. You just want to spew your "I hate liberals" comments whether it has anything to do with what we are discussing or not. Now, I'll ask AGAIN... do you have anything reasonable to say, or do you just want to discuss your anti-liberal agenda?
Click to expand...

your digging a deeper hole for your all emotion far left , no substance liberal agenda ridden posts... very typical of you


Obama, Clinton have backed similar religious-freedom bills


Sponsored Links by
Indiana’s new religious-freedom law, which has prompted calls for a state boycott because it might permit discrimination against gays and lesbians, was made law by a Republican governor and Republican legislature. But the controversy could also ensnare leading Democrats like President Barack Obama, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who previously supported bills with similar effects years ago

snip
Democrats in Bind on Controversial Indiana Religious-Freedom Law
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom