• 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

no problem

as long as someone else can sell me what you can sell me

no skin off of my nose.....

but, your loss....my money is green

That was my point in the first place.

The Muslim baker...in Travis' example is an idiot or hates money...
 
yea.. Id like to know also.. good question...I cant wait for the response..

I have yet to find someone capable of answering that question. The thing is that I don't think anyone can answer that question without leaning on the law and once that do that they have committed a fallacy.
 
No, not at all...but I bet I maintain a lot more customers than the a lot of business in Indiana who want to openly run a bigoted business. How many their look like Homer?

Probably a lot. It's the sad reality of this country that more men resemble Homer Simpson than resemble Sean Connery. :(

I think business owners should have a right to do that, but they should also assume accountability for their action$ (these things hit them in their pocketbooks). And in this day and age, the buyer can likely find another vendor who doesn't care about his less than handsome appearance.
 
In a perfect world..but in this one the Elites have installed safeguards to prevent public input. Cause they know what's good for us.

The problem is that politics are too big of an influence on the legal profession.
 
That was my point in the first place.

The Muslim baker...in Travis' example is an idiot or hates money...

People have the right to be idiots. Then again, who the **** wants a bacon cake? I mean, ok, bacon is delicious, but on a cake? **** no! I'm not making that.
 
Yes, I was interested, and I didn't think it was bad to ask you what it was instead of spending half an hour Googling to find it.

So there were 3 people who oppose gay marriage or gay people at the signing. And this is somehow surprising? Who normally attends bill signings - opponents of the bill?

But why should these particular people support the bill? And why no same sex marriage/gay rights' supporters if this wasn't about at least in some way being able to discriminate against gays based on religious beliefs? That is basically the point. There is a reason those particular people are there, supporting this bill in general, and it is because they see this bill as a victory for opponents of gay rights.
 
The original RFR act was all about peyote ingestion for religious purposes,so why not.

Here's a look at history of 'religious freedom' laws

Of course, which is why I can't wait to see that one play out. Might be a quickly growing "church" if the state has to allow them to use pot for "religious purposes." I've briefly looked to see if RFRA was tested that way at some point. Seems like this can't be a new idea. Didn't find anything.
 
Probably a lot. It's the sad reality of this country that more men resemble Homer Simpson than resemble Sean Connery. :(

I think business owners should have a right to do that, but they should also assume accountability for their action$ (these things hit them in their pocketbooks). And in this day and age, the buyer can likely find another vendor who doesn't care about his less than handsome appearance.

Hey, if bigotry is more important than money... :shrug:
 
People have the right to be idiots. Then again, who the **** wants a bacon cake? I mean, ok, bacon is delicious, but on a cake? **** no! I'm not making that.

Are you claiming to be living example of that, Henrin. Is that your right, too?
 
But why should these particular people support the bill? And why no same sex marriage/gay rights' supporters if this wasn't about at least in some way being able to discriminate against gays based on religious beliefs? That is basically the point. There is a reason those particular people are there, supporting this bill in general, and it is because they see this bill as a victory for opponents of gay rights.

Isn't this about religious rights to not serve (insert x)? I assume those 3 are opposed to gay rights based on religious reasons. I don't know who else was in the room. And all of the stories about the businesses being compelled to serve people (the bakers, the photographer) were all religious opponents to gay lifestyles/SSM. So what's surprising about those people being there since the uproar is that the entire bill is an anti-gay bill?
 
I have yet to find someone capable of answering that question. The thing is that I don't think anyone can answer that question without leaning on the law and once that do that they have committed a fallacy.

9.9 times out of 10, your questions aren't relevant in the U.S.,or most any other civilize nation, Henrin.

You seem to believe that your questions have some kind profound, unanswerable meaning or answers. You live by the creed, "Just because I made it up doesn't mean its not true."

Oh, and appeal to law seems to work in nations rule by law...not anarchy.
 
Hey, if bigotry is more important than money... :shrug:

Well, I guess to them it's religion is more important than money, or dislike for Homer Simpson, or dislike for Asians, or contempt for women, or whatever the reason for not wanting to do the job is.
 
OK, but you understand no one has a problem with that until it reaches the realm of public policy, such as laws criminalizing consensual sex between adults, or allowing for discrimination, or Constitutional amendments to prohibit the state from extending benefits to same sex couples. It's a huge distinction between using reason or persuasion or whatever to change their lives for the better and enshrining what you believe is "better" into the laws that affect us all.



Sure it is, unless the doing of what YOU might label "vile or disgusting" somehow harms you. Sex between consenting adults isn't remotely "vile or disgusting" to me, or gay sex isn't any more "vile and disgusting" as imagining all kinds of people having straight sex. Watching Mitch McConnell having sex? I might gouge my eyes out first...... etc...



Missing the point.



Of course, people in those churches have different beliefs, and aren't looking for your approval, or opinion on the prospects of their salvation, same way I imagine you're not looking to them. Religion is intensely personal and there are endless variations within and between religions. All society asks us to do is allow for those differences. There is no 'right' to impose your religious beliefs on others.

If you or others consider my quoting of scripture or discussion of what is in my faith to be imposition, that's on you.

The first amendment protects my right to free speech and to practice my religion as I see fit. We shouldn't even need another law to define this.
 
Well, I guess to them it's religion is more important than money, or dislike for Homer Simpson, or dislike for Asians, or contempt for women, or whatever the reason for not wanting to do the job is.

And for what it's worth...we have volumes and volumes of history books that show how effective religious bigotry turns out in the long run.

So I guess they can cling to their religion. No skin off of my wallet...until somebody refuses me goods or services based on their religion. Then may the chips fall where they may.
 
9.9 times out of 10, your questions aren't relevant in the U.S.,or most any other civilize nation, Henrin.

You seem to believe that your questions have some kind profound, unanswerable meaning or answers. You live by the creed, "Just because I made it up doesn't mean its not true."

You mean like how civil rights movement were fighting for rights that weren't protected by law? You mean like how most of the people that are fighting for gay rights believe that rights come from government? Yes, I suppose you could say they are fighting for something that doesn't exist anywhere but their mind. I suppose if you entire argument is that it is all subjective and yet my argument is not subjective you're being entirely logical in your approach. :lol:


Oh, and appeal to law seems to work in nations rule by law...not anarchy.

When you are arguing in support of the law and you have no other reasoning then it's the law then your argument is circular and thus you are committing a fallacy.
 
You mean like how civil rights movement were fighting for rights that weren't protected by law? You mean like how most of the people that are fighting for gay rights believe that rights come from government? Yes, I suppose you could say they are fighting for something that doesn't exist anywhere but their mind.




When you are arguing in support of the law and you have no other reasoning then it's the law then your argument is circular and thus you are committing a fallacy.


When you come back from La La Land, give me a call.
 
When you come back from La La Land, give me a call.

So I take it you don't have an answer to my question. I didn't think you did, but then, no one else does either, so don't worry about it.
 
I've read it. Here's what he had to say: "There are hardly any cases about discrimination, and nobody has ever won a religious exemption from a discrimination law under a RFRA standard." If he's right, the answer is "No." Pence is trying to play this both ways - appease the anti-SSM/gay crowd AND the rest of the world with "this has nothing to do with teh geys - promise!"

Pretty funny, actually.

Pence has been the honest one. It's his critics who have been disingenuous.
 
I got it. Again, if anyone voting for the law then had major interest groups promoting the law as a way to "protect" businesses and individuals "against those promoting homosexual marriage" then that's very relevant. We've been through this with the Federal law.

You keep deliberately missing the point, but those with the "faux" outrage are just taking the right wing anti-SSM crowd at their word that this law was intended to target homosexuals and SSM. It is in the news now, and I don't think the sudden push in red states to pass RFRA type laws is a coincidence or because they're all suddenly worried about native American rituals etc...

What would make the controversy go away is Indiana taking at least a partial step into the law like Utah did that explicitly protects gays - in Utah it was just in employment and housing, but that's a good first step. What's the harm?

Those who sponsored the law have, I believe, been caught off guard by the vicious dishonesty of their critics.
 
And for what it's worth...we have volumes and volumes of history books that show how effective religious bigotry turns out in the long run.

So I guess they can cling to their religion. No skin off of my wallet...until somebody refuses me goods or services based on their religion. Then may the chips fall where they may.

I guess we worry about different things, RM. I wouldn't lose my marbles because someone doesn't want to bake me a cake so I have to go to the guy down the road.

I'm not religious at all, but it doesn't bother me when others are. I just don't want to be forced to go to church or wear ashes on my head one day in February or read the Bible or pray with beads. To each his own.
 
So I take it you don't have an answer to my question. I didn't think you did, but then, no one else does either, so don't worry about it.


Know from the bottom of your heart...I'm not gonna worry about it. But when you realize that you too are subject to complying with laws of the land...feel free to give me a shout.
 
No not bigotry, there can be no religious bigotry in reaffirming religious freedom as it's practice is a protected right under the constitution. The idea that governmental institutions should be able to compel religious individuals to act against their own conscience (sincere religious belief) is outrageous.

I guess in your view everyone has a right to be a bigot as long as they are acting with "sincere religious belief". The same nonsense was spouted about integrating schools, inter-racial marriages.... BS then and BS now.
 
Back
Top Bottom