• 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

When asked during a press conference, House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) basically said that with few exceptions, discrimination against gays is allowed in Indiana (Video is 27 min.)

GOP leaders offer remarks on RFRA

Reporter: “You guys have said repeatedly that we shouldn’t be able to discriminate against anyone, but if you just ignore the existence of this law, can’t we already do that now? Can’t so-and-so in Richmond put a sign up and say ‘No Gays Allowed?’ That’s not against the law, correct?”

Bosma: “It would depend, if you were in a community that had a human rights ordinance that wouldn’t be the case.”

Reporter: “But most of the state does not have that, correct?”

Bosma: “That’s correct.”

According to the Human Rights Campaign, only the cities of Bloomington, Evansville, Indianapolis, and South Bend prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, along with Marion County and Monroe County.
 
99%... can never say 100% but I find it very unlikely even it was Richard Simmons with a "Right Said Fred world tour" t shirt on.. Drs do not allow the injured to go untreated for some political position..

But walk in clinics mayn times are not staffed with the right person at the moment and or equipment.....I just experienced that myself.. I am not gay

I would agree that it's very unlikely. I'm SURE I could find a few examples, but those would be rare exceptions and do not prove anything. And I agree with you about walk in clinics. However, what is your opinion on those few doctors who WOULD send away a homosexual in need of medical attention, just because they are homosexual?
 
Call BS all ya want. I'm relaying what transpired.

Then your friend has a legitimate law suit if what you say is true, but I doubt very much what you say or what he told you was true.

Just sayin.

Tim-
 
Liberals have a mob mentality, something they claim to despise. they gang up on one group(in this case christians) and bully them and make it their mission to ruin the lives of those who disagree. It's the worst kind of attitude and mindset.
 
again.. quote whats the issue so I can help you.. I cant read minds

I've stated the issue. You are either diverting or do not understand. I'd bet the first one.
 
to be told you are right..and if its not your post, angle or agenda its incorrect... the usual

Standard extreme conservative dodging when cornered. This did not address the specifics of my post. This is what you do, Travis. You assign a position based on YOUR agenda, and when challenged, flutter around like a chicken with no head. I've backed you into a corner. You have two choices. Either respond to my question, or dodge it. I've seen that, so far you've chosen the latter. Do you want to try again, or do you want to go the way that all extreme conservatives go... down in flames when their dishonesty and diversions are challenged and exposed?
 
Liberals have a mob mentality, something they claim to despise. they gang up on one group(in this case christians) and bully them and make it their mission to ruin the lives of those who disagree. It's the worst kind of attitude and mindset.

From what I'VE seen in this thread, your comments are decidedly one sided... which is not surprising. In this thread, several liberals have over-reacted and taken the law to the extreme. And several conservatives have misrepresented, been blind, and assigned positions that do not apply. The problem here is both sides, as usual.
 
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 '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.

I like how you stated that I have no way of knowing how the law will be applied, and then state how it would be applied in your next sentence. Classy. Have you found a case that shows RFRA being applied in the manner you've suggested? Shouldn't be a problem, given that these laws have been on the books for decades.

I can't seem to find any article on your city, which you didn't name. Can you link something?
 
OMG Malloy is such an embarrassment. Seriously.

Yes, I'm sure there was a lot of state travel to Indiana for CT government employees. :roll:

OMFG on CT's religious freedom law. OMFG. I should laugh at his ignorance, but I have a lot of friends who still live in CT and I feel sorry for them now.

Malloy needs to get back to his efforts to capitalize on Sandy Hook and leave the lawmaking to the smart people.

We are also getting another tax hike after the largest tax hike in state history when he took over. WEEEEEEEEeeee.
 
From what I'VE seen in this thread, your comments are decidedly one sided... which is not surprising. In this thread, several liberals have over-reacted and taken the law to the extreme. And several conservatives have misrepresented, been blind, and assigned positions that do not apply. The problem here is both sides, as usual.

Yes, because people who experience righteous anger when losing their human rights are just as bad as people who experience defensive anger when called out for oppressing others' rights. :roll: Epic fail, CC.
 
OMG Malloy is such an embarrassment. Seriously.

Yes, I'm sure there was a lot of state travel to Indiana for CT government employees. :roll:

OMFG on CT's religious freedom law. OMFG. I should laugh at his ignorance, but I have a lot of friends who still live in CT and I feel sorry for them now.

Malloy needs to get back to his efforts to capitalize on Sandy Hook and leave the lawmaking to the smart people.

Also, yes, we have a version of the religious freedom laws from the 90s. HAhahaha.
 
We are also getting another tax hike after the largest tax hike in state history when he took over. WEEEEEEEEeeee.

We lived in Fairfield County back in the early 1990s. I miss the fun of downtown Stamford. I don't miss the taxes.
 
Yes, because people who experience righteous anger when losing their human rights are just as bad as people who experience defensive anger when called out for oppressing others' rights. :roll: Epic fail, CC.

"Righteous" is subjective, and you just did precisely what I said. BOTH sides have legitimate positions on this issue. The problem is the application of those issues.
 
the state shouldn't scansion any of those, either.

The state should do its job and protect the private property rights of its citizens. It doesn't have to "sanction" anything by letting free people make choices about who they want to associate with and who they want to hold custom with.
 
Judges shouldn't be elected I agree. How do you believe they should get to their respective positions then?

That story in your signature line. Did that news make it to the Netherlands?

In the Netherlands judges go to a school for judges.

You first need a university law degree and between 2 and 5 years of relevant legal work experience outside of the court system.

You also need to have demands on the personal level like a good analytical mind, have insight in legal issues and has to be comfortable making decisions. Working under stress should have no consequences with regard to the quality of your work. You have to have excellent communicative qualities and you need to be able to make transparent and pure decisions. You also need to have decent social experience.

Then you need to go through 11 weeks of interview processes, a process of 13 steps including the person officially filling out an application, then there is a review based on the application to review if all the demands were met, then the candidates are checked through the police and court records, then an analytical test, pre-interview, all your references are contacted and checked, a psychological assessment, 3 interviews with the selection committee, decision of the committee, first job interview with the court that is looking for new judges, intake interview where the length of your education/schooling will be decided with member of the court and representatives of the education institute (specifically deciding which study subjects need extra attention), an interview in which the specific working conditions are discussed and it ends with the education itself.

The education process is very extensive and if you are interested you can read about it here https://ssr.nl/uploads/Pdf-documenten/Initieel/Summary%20new%20Dutch%20initial%20training%20programme.pdf

After that someone will be appointed as a judge. That is at least how it goes in the Netherlands.
 
We lived in Fairfield County back in the early 1990s. I miss the fun of downtown Stamford. I don't miss the taxes.

I must have come in when you were leaving. I moved to Fairfield County in 1995. I moved back to Ohio in 2011. And not a moment too soon. To borrow a line from Samuel Clemens, if I owned Connecticut and I owned hell, I'd rent out Connecticut and live in hell.
 
"Righteous" is subjective, and you just did precisely what I said. BOTH sides have legitimate positions on this issue. The problem is the application of those issues.

If you are straight and cisgender, then you have the privilege of making comments such as these. You are completely dismissing the legitimate concerns of LGBTs, who have to deal with homophobia and genderphobia every day of their lives. As such, your holier-than-thou attitude does not deserve to be listened to. It only deserves to be stood up.
 
A Muslim business owner can refuse to serve bacon, but they can't refuse to serve bacon to black people but serve bacon to white people anyway. Hope this helps your confusion.

But can a Muslim cake decorator refuse to make a Happy Birthday Muhammad cake, with picture?
 
Nope, not a vegetarian restaurant. She, like I, loves animals and doesn't appreciate jokes about animals being made into meat.
Just don't understand why someone would be so opposed to hunting while making a living selling meat from slaughterhouses. But that's a subject for another thread.

She can't say "You have to leave because I don't like black people". Black people are of the protected class. Have you been following along?
You're the one who claimed "you can deny service to anyone for any reason"

What are the laws that say you can't deny service for purely arbitrary reasons? If I own a cleaning service, and I clean the house next to you, what law says I have to clean your house just because you want me to if I decide I don't want to do it because you have kids and I don't like kids? That's arbitrary.
State public accommodations laws - which is why I say things like "typically," "usually," and "most if not all" because I don't know the law in every state.

A cleaning service is not "a place of public accommodation."
 
Arbitrarily jettisoning those that you don't like the looks off from a business that serves the public isn't freedom. That's some nazi era ****.


first off.. I dont believe your story, second, you are the one with knowing the "absolutes"...maybe there was no Dr on staff that could help him or the proper equipment...
 
I can't believe any of those guys picked it up. I live in NH and it got about 6 seconds mention on our news channels and barely a mention in our newspapers.

Nobody I know of cared that he used a discussion about our state bird in such a manner. It was how something proposed by kids was hijacked for political purposes - by both sides, by the way.

It was on Last Week Tonight in a subject that lasted about 5 minutes

John Oliver on 'Last Week Tonight' takes on 4th-graders' bill killed by NH legislators | NH1



After that I read up on it before I posted it because I really thought it was inappropriate to use a bill written by 4th graders (and witnessed by said 4th graders) in such a manner.

And at the end they made the raptor those 4th graders wanted to make into the state raptor into the Last Week Tonight official raptor.
 
Back
Top Bottom