• 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

1.)I was correcting your error by stating it was about anti-discrimination.
2.)And my point stands and is accurate that the laws are similar in their effect, forced servitude and and rape

1.) never made that mistake because its not about it, like you claimed wasnt said which was a lie
2.) nope it still fails because you haven't been able to support your claim, that's how it works around here, you made a claim now its on you to support it with facts.
there is no forced servitude as already pointed out to you by facts, laws, rights, the constitution and court cases that all disagree . . . so tell us . . what supports your false claims besides your opinion?
facts win again
 
1.) dont need to they stand on thier own footing
2.) not using them to defend any "argument" im simply stating facts which they prove.

Actually they don't. There is several issues with the logic presented by the court justices in those cases.
 
Is this a pattern with you (just so I know in the future). You ask for something, get it, deny you got it, then claim the other person can't provide it?
this is called another deflection and nobody honest, educated and objective falls for it
you havent provided anything that supports your claim, im looking for FACTS
your feelings and opinions dont matter to anybody
 
Actually they don't. There is several issues with the logic presented by the court justices in those cases.

says you but your opinions, feelings and philosophies dont matter to the law, rights, constitution and court cases.
 
says you but your opinions, feelings and philosophies dont matter to the law, rights, constitution and court cases.

Why do you even bother arguing with libertarians? They're purely driven by emotion and beyond the reach of reason.
 
1.) never made that mistake because its not about it, like you claimed wasnt said which was a lie
2.) nope it still fails because you haven't been able to support your claim, that's how it works around here, you made a claim now its on you to support it with facts.
there is no forced servitude as already pointed out to you by facts, laws, rights, the constitution and court cases that all disagree . . . so tell us . . what supports your false claims besides your opinion?
facts win again
As I said, people who want to force servitude and exert power and control over others won't recognize or admit it
 
this is called another deflection and nobody honest, educated and objective falls for it
you havent provided anything that supports your claim, im looking for FACTS
your feelings and opinions dont matter to anybody
That answers my question, for future reference
 
says you but your opinions, feelings and philosophies dont matter to the law, rights, constitution and court cases.

And then there is this drivel that you can't help but repeat. Do you know how justices come to their decisions? Maybe you should figure that out before you repeat this to me again.
 
As I said, people who want to force servitude and exert power and control over others won't recognize or admit it

People that want to deny gays in places of public accommodation wedding cakes are doing exactly that.
 
Why do you even bother arguing with libertarians? They're purely driven by emotion and beyond the reach of reason.

Oh? Ok, so how is forcing someone to serve others not involuntary servitude? Well?
 
Oh? Ok, so how is forcing someone to serve others not involuntary servitude? Well?

Did they involuntarily open a business that serves the general public and obtain a business license to do so? Did they involuntarily agree to the terms and conditions that come with that license?
 
As I said, people who want to force servitude and exert power and control over others won't recognize or admit it

so you cant tell us what supports your false claims and makes the facts, laws, rights, the constitution and court cases that all disagree with you wrong? got it.
 
I imagine many restaurants did in fact want to serve blacks but couldn't.

seems like that was the case, for sure.

lunch-counter-sit-in.jpg
 
That answers my question, for future reference

and yet another deflection
let us know when the false claims in your posts can be supported, we'd love to read about it
 
And then there is this drivel that you can't help but repeat. Do you know how justices come to their decisions? Maybe you should figure that out before you repeat this to me again.

soooooo you dont have anything other than your opinions, feelings and philosophies. Thats what i thought
facts win again
 
I don't disagree with you. The law is a smokescreen for attacks on the LGBT community. If it wasn't, it's broadness would address other groups, such as atheists for example. The actual legal intent of such a law, however, is not really problematic, and people can choose to associate with whomever they want. I support businesses having the right to choose who they will serve for whatever reason. I also support free speech and freedom of the press, and I would encourage people to take out full page ads in newspapers identifying businesses who choose not to serve certain groups of people.

Problem with that is imagine the logical conclusion when one minority is so hated NO ONE will service them - the jim crow south or jews in various times and places. Whether you approve of the civil rights act or accommodation laws, so long as there are protected groups, *everyone* must be protected...else it's not *equal* protection as required under the 14th

And the civil rights act will not be repealed...so adding LGBT to the list is only fair and sensible

Actually the intent of the law does matter. Roper v evans established that laws born from "animus" towards a group are unconstitutional...which this clearly is

It does matter too. Imagine being told by your government that discrimination against you and only you is acceptable
 
Last edited:
Did they involuntarily open a business that serves the general public and obtain a business license to do so? Did they involuntarily agree to the terms and conditions that come with that license?
The context here is Indiana and guess what. Indiana doesn't have a law protecting homosexuals from discrimination and a lot of businesses opened before such laws were in place elsewhere
 
soooooo you dont have anything other than your opinions, feelings and philosophies. Thats what i thought
facts win again

I take it you have no idea how justices come to their decisions.
 
Back
Top Bottom