• 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

I already saw that.

Then have the legislature "clarify" the law, something they said HELL NO!! to during the process earlier.

There's actually no need for clarification, but the dishonest attacks and the gullible reporting of the story may force the state to take an unnecessary action for cosmetic purposes. Score one for the liars.
 
How about bigotry against the religious?
Are religious groups not a protected class?
Should the religious discriminated against because of their lifestyle choice?
Should the force of governmental institutions be used against the religious to compel behavior in conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs?
Isn't your calling of religious groups "Bigots" an example of hate speech, designed to create public pressure against the religious?

There is a balance that the courts have traditionally applied when protected groups are in conflict, the Indiana law re-affirms the courts role in balancing the needs of all individuals and protected classes, not just the ones that scream the loudest.

WWJD? If you don't know the answer....perhaps you need to read about the man.
 
That is some good defence, wrong though it is. Mr French claimed that gays were protected BEFORE passage of the RFRA bill in 1993.

Why then are right wing controlled states passing their own versions of the RFRA if not in attempts to subvert the movement to preserve gay rights? Why are so many state legislators quite openly admitting they are supporting such laws because their intention is to allow discrimination?

The SCOTUS nudged states toward their own RFRA's in a decision in 1997.
 
He associated with sinners to try to get them to stop sinning.



Jesus did not buy or sell the prostitute trashy clothes to help her business.Jesus did not help the tax collector find more ways to steal more money.Jesus did not help muggers get better weapons. Jesus did not buy burglars a set of lock picks to make it easier for them to rob homes. So I am pretty sure Jesus would not his followers preforming gay weddings, selling gay wedding cakes and etc seeing how those encourage/aid more sinning not less sinning.

I get it! At the Sermon on the Mount Jesus made certain that porkers and fatasses didn't get any bread and made damned sure they didn't go back for seconds. That would have been enabling them to commit one of the 7 Deadly Sins, no? Why doesn't anyone ever mention that?

I'm confused. According to you Christians in Indiana need a religious freedom law for the purpose of only practicing the parts of their religion they like. Christians in Indiana are not denying greedy people the right to purchase more crap they don't need, right? How about McMansions? Do Christian real estate agents refuse to sell people houses that people really don't need? You are telling me Indiana Christians support selling boats and vacation homes and diamond jewelry to people. Doesn't that directly contribute to the practice of envy? They don't have problems doing business and/or associating with prideful people either, huh? When fat people come rolling into a Christian owned restaurant in Indiana their business will not be refused...unless they are gay fat people.

What do you want to bet that almost all the churches that support Indiana's religious freedom law so that they can deny doing business with gay people in the Lord's name have vending machines full of sugary drinks and sugar laden snacks? Promoting and enabling gluttony for Jesus? That's OK. Right?

So we really aren't talking about the protection of a religion are we? We aren't even talking about most Christians. We are talking about a law that allows a small number of people practice pure hatred in the name of Christianity. I'd imagine most good Christians in Indiana feel raped.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for a non response to my post. I love wasted time.

Not a non-response at all. Your dodge is noted. You post was simply playing the "Religious martyr" card. WWJD? Do you think that he would turn away the gay person or turn him away and then claim he was a martyr due to the backlash? If you don't know the answer, read about the man.
 
Judges make mistakes - lots of them, in fact. They let child molesters out to molest more children. They award adults millions of dollars in damages because they made stupid decisions that impacted them. And so on. I appreciate that there is a need for them but I don't approach things thinking "what would a judge do", because that could cause my eyeballs to fall out just thinking about it.
Believe me, I understand this sentiment. One of my family members (an attorney) got on the bad side of a judge and could spend two years on a case, only to have the judge basically ignore the law. Yes, there's an appeal process, but the costs in time and money (and all of the problems that come when you run out of those,) are enormous.

Unfortunately, judges do have the final say on what the law is, and we are forced to live with that.

I think if we assume anyone can go before a judge and say "He wouldn't serve me!", our already cluttered judicial system will get clogged even more with stupid suits. That's another issue I have with all of this and that's why I keep thinking, right or wrong, it has to be all or nothing. Today we're talking about religious beliefs and gay people. Tomorrow it could be that something entirely different.
Fortunately, this is largely a state issue, which means the potential is there for states to serve as testbeds for different solutions, and perhaps something will arise that better addresses the concerns of all residents.

I think it important to understand that businesses do in fact have the right to serve anyone they choose, but the government is infringing on this right in its own interest. That is, there is no true right to be served at places of public accommodation, it is a legal right conferred in good faith. As such, I have little compassion for those (like the neo Nazis) who would use it as a tool to make some political point or basically just to piss people off. If it ever gets to the point where there's a lot of this "let's hire the gay caterer to provide food for our I Hate Gays party" or yes - demanding that the Christian baker make the cake for your wedding when there's a half dozen other bakeries in the immediate area - I would certainly understand a lot of people wanting to walk back some of these laws.
 
The contradiction, despite the semantics, is obvious

yes that lie keeps being repeated but yet the contradiction hasnt been pointed out. Very telling. Please in your next post point out the factual contradiction, thanks.

I bet this request is dodged again.
 
Last edited:
There's actually no need for clarification, but the dishonest attacks and the gullible reporting of the story may force the state to take an unnecessary action for cosmetic purposes. Score one for the liars.

Hooocoodanode that people would believe the well funded, coordinated, but apparently dishonest right wing anti-SSM supporters of the law making dishonest claims about what the law would do, or that legislators rejecting amendments that would clarify that the dishonest claims made by social conservatives were dishonest, could turn out badly, except all the people who urged the GOP to not pass the bill and for Pence to not sign it.

Guess they should have listened. Also, not a good plan to invite the dishonest right wing anti-SSM bill supporters to the bill signing if you're trying to distance the bill from the anti-SSM efforts. Too bad. Crying crocodile tears over here for Pence and the GOP legislature for having to endure "vicious" attacks because they're idiots who ignored the warnings and pandered to anti-SSM bigots. :boohoo:
 
That is some good defence, wrong though it is. Mr French claimed that gays were protected BEFORE passage of the RFRA bill in 1993.

Why then are right wing controlled states passing their own versions of the RFRA if not in attempts to subvert the movement to preserve gay rights? Why are so many state legislators quite openly admitting they are supporting such laws because their intention is to allow discrimination?

Because unlike same sex marriage circumvention and legislation by way of the judiciary ala the 14th Amendment which guarantees civil rights to all and where marriage although religious in nature is not religious necessarily; religious association is quite a different thing, and is specific to the state of mind and covenant with anyone's God, independent from state interference. In other words, marriage is religious in nature only, but legally requires a license to procure, thus state direct involvement, however, a business owner has no such impediment under the law, where competing liberties are at odds.

It really comes down to that. States are exerting specific protections for competing liberties, and providing remedies in anticipation or preemption of challenges by gays, or anyone else that contradicts religions and conscientious objectors.

That about sums it up, and it only took 200 plus pages to get here. :)

You're all welcome.

Tim-
 
Last edited:
I don't have any problem with that decision. There are obvious downsides for either result. As it is a small number of Jewish establishments will be forced to serve Nazi's, but all Jews in California have strong protection against being discriminated against, including by idiots like those Nazi's.
When Jews visit restaurants, they're typically not trying to make some political statement out of it. These neo Nazis were not denied service simply because of their political beliefs, but because they wanted to "advertise" their beliefs in an establishment that was clearly offended by them. I believe the establishment even told them that they would have no problem serving them if they removed the swastikas.
 
What's wrong is to tell a business he can't refuse service to someone for whatever reasons he chooses

WWJD? Do you think Jesus would turn someone away because they were gay? What do you think Jesus would think of the person who turned someone away because they were black or gay or just because they thought the person was "icky"? "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren....ye have done it unto me".
 
Hooocoodanode that people would believe the well funded, coordinated, but apparently dishonest right wing anti-SSM supporters of the law making dishonest claims about what the law would do, or that legislators rejecting amendments that would clarify that the dishonest claims made by social conservatives were dishonest, could turn out badly, except all the people who urged the GOP to not pass the bill and for Pence to not sign it.

Guess they should have listened. Also, not a good plan to invite the dishonest right wing anti-SSM bill supporters to the bill signing if you're trying to distance the bill from the anti-SSM efforts. Too bad. Crying crocodile tears over here for Pence and the GOP legislature for having to endure "vicious" attacks because they're idiots who ignored the warnings and pandered to anti-SSM bigots. :boohoo:

Do you think the more credible voices are those of the actual legislators? Or those making noise outside? Please don't confuse the two. You won't like it when that tactic is used against the left.
 
Because unlike same sex marriage circumvention and legislation by way of the judiciary ala the 14th Amendment which guarantees civil rights to all and where marriage although religious in nature is not religious necessarily; religious association is quite a different thing, and is specific to the state of mind and covenant with anyone's God, independent from state interference. In other words, marriage is religious in nature only, but legally requires a license to procure, thus state direct involvement, however, a business owner has no such impediment under the law, where competing liberties are at odds.

It really comes down to that. States are exerting specific protections for competing liberties, and providing remedies in anticipation or preemption of challenges by gays, or anyone else that contradicts religions and conscientious objectors.

That about sums it up, and it only took 200 plus pages to get here. :)

You're all welcome.

Tim-



bravo.gif


th

th
 
I am 100% non-religious and 100% for gay/lesbian marriage.

BUT

I am 100% against the state telling private businesses who they can and cannot serve.

Assuming it is not a matter of life and death, I think a private business should be able to refuse anyone, for any reason...sex, race, height, hair color, what color your shirt is, ANYTHING.


And why a homosexual would want to go to a business (that is not a matter of life and death to use) where the owner has to be forced by law to serve them is totally beyond me.
 
I am 100% non-religious and 100% for gay/lesbian marriage.

BUT

I am 100% against the state telling private businesses who they can and cannot serve.

Assuming it is not a matter of life and death, I think a private business should be able to refuse anyone, for any reason...sex, race, height, hair color, what color your shirt is, ANYTHING.


And why a homosexual would want to go to a business (that is not a matter of life and death to use) where the owner has to be forced by law to serve them is totally beyond me.

Then the business should not expect anything from the government.
 
My mother is Catholic as well, as was my grandmother. Guess who taught me that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality and that they should be allowed to marry? My mother and grandmother. My grandmother is the most devout to her faith that I have seen, having said prayers 4 hours a day, 7 days a week for as long as I knew her. (You didn't interrupt my grandmother's prayers.) Just because people have "literature" claiming something is a sin or say "my religion says" doesn't mean it isn't still their personal beliefs that lead them to do something like refusing to sell a cake for a same sex wedding.

That's all well and good, but others are not held to your grandmother's understanding of her religion. The Indiana law protects the freedoms and rights of those who disagree with her
 
That's all well and good, but others are not held to your grandmother's understanding of her religion. The Indiana law protects the freedoms and rights of those who disagree with her

This Bill is about denial of rights.
 
When Jews visit restaurants, they're typically not trying to make some political statement out of it. These neo Nazis were not denied service simply because of their political beliefs, but because they wanted to "advertise" their beliefs in an establishment that was clearly offended by them. I believe the establishment even told them that they would have no problem serving them if they removed the swastikas.

Even still, the principle that a business open to the public serves the public is fairly straightforward and the benefits of that as a whole would seem to easily outweigh the harm in a few instances of a few businesses serving people they might REALLY not like a whole lot.

It's no different in my view than the ACLU defending the right of those idiots to march.
 
Do you think the more credible voices are those of the actual legislators? Or those making noise outside? Please don't confuse the two. You won't like it when that tactic is used against the left.

But the actual legislators were warned, were given chances to assuage critics, and didn't do it. And Pence embraced those voices when he invited them to the bill signing. They made their bed by trying to appease bigots. Not sorry they're paying a price for it.
 
19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting - The Washington Post
The same law is on the books in 19 States, the Federal government(1993), and in-effect through case law in 11 other States. How is Indiana's legalizing discrimination, but these other 31 instances are not?

Furthermore, can you show a case where RFRA was leveraged to win a discrimination case? Here are 10 cases, but they don't align with your viewpoint: 10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's


Here's the difference between the federal RFRA and those 19 states:
First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, 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.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation

The other states RFRAs are meant to rectify issues between a person and the government, while Indiana's applies to issues between private citizens. That means a business owner could use it as protection against claims of discrimination by protected classes. And that is the same difference between the federal law passed in 1993 and Indiana's.
 
Not a non-response at all. Your dodge is noted. You post was simply playing the "Religious martyr" card. WWJD? Do you think that he would turn away the gay person or turn him away and then claim he was a martyr due to the backlash? If you don't know the answer, read about the man.

If history is a teacher, he would say "Hey!!! Dont hate on the gay guy!!!" and then he would turn to the gay guy and say "go forth...and sin no more..."
 
Back
Top Bottom