• 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

Neighboring Illinois has a RFRA law. But it also has a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Texas and Missouri have RFRA laws. But they have sections in their RFRA laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Indiana has no such statewide/RFRA protections. Indiana legislators rejected such protections when deliberating the Indiana RFRA law.

One has to ask ... why?
 
I'm waiting for Starbucks to announce it's closing all of its stores in Indiana. They should be able to do that this afternoon. It's so easy!

The way this law has been twisted by the easily led who read Think Progress and believe they have any clue about the law is a sight to behold. Again, it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. I think everyone should get married - yes, gay people too - and I really don't care what people's preferences of a lover are, so I disagree with the religious right who think being gay is a sin. But if they believe it, that's their choice.

The ridiculous "what ifs" that came out in this thread (and others - there's another one where someone decided that because of this law, if you're black, you won't be able to get food on your family vacation in Indiana - not kidding) are what's wrong here. Just like the stupid what ifs from the Hobby Lobby decision. The people who put these absurd things out there are getting it from Think Progress and other hard left sites. That's why hyper partisan sites are so dangerous.

Yeah, they'll boycott the Final Four. :lol: Of course! But guess what? It will be "Um, we'll boycott it next year! Yeah!".

State travel to Indiana. :lamo That's my favorite. I'm watching Dannel Malloy getting owned by Joe Scarborough right now. I wish Joe would ask him just how much state travel to Indiana the CT lawmakers did. Oh, he says most fraternities are based in Indiana, and they should make a statement by just getting up and moving out of Indiana. What is with these idiot leftists who have no idea what it takes to move a business to another state?


Yeah Rahm Emanuel tried to get some face time. He said once he heard, he was trying to let businesses in Indiana know how beneficial it would be for them to move to Chicago and Illinois. He sent a letter to like 12-15 of them.

I am sure they will want to pay all the high taxes we have over here and see how that would be so much more beneficial for them. Including their cost of living. :roll:
 
The Bible is a sausage-fest. That's kinda geigh.
 
Simpleχity;1064479888 said:
Neighboring Illinois has a RFRA law. But it also has a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Texas and Missouri have RFRA laws. But they have sections in their RFRA laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Indiana has no such statewide/RFRA protections. Indiana legislators rejected such protections when deliberating the Indiana RFRA law.

One has to ask ... why?

Why doesn't the federal government have such a law
 
Simpleχity;1064479888 said:
Neighboring Illinois has a RFRA law. But it also has a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Texas and Missouri have RFRA laws. But they have sections in their RFRA laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Indiana has no such statewide/RFRA protections. Indiana legislators rejected such protections when deliberating the Indiana RFRA law.

One has to ask ... why?


Because there is a Constitution and the Civil Rights act. You didn't think because they had nothing specific that they still wouldn't follow the law, did you?
 
Actually, neither do you. Yet you do. You've decided that no religion teaches its members that being gay isn't right. You keep saying it's only people's personal views and has nothing to do with their religion.

I didn't that religions didn't teach that, some religions or at least leaders of some religions do teach that. But the person chooses to accept that teaching. Many people reject parts of their religion's teachings, while still maintaining the major tenets or most of them of that religion.
 
Just because you fell for the rhetoric doesn't mean it was right. This is part of the Great falling away.

This is part of you not wanting to accept that people are different and believe different things even if they are considered part of the same religion.
 
Because there is a Constitution and the Civil Rights act. You didn't think because they had nothing specific that they still wouldn't follow the law, did you?

wouldnt that same answer apply to saying theres no need for the RFRA in the first place then?

My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

just like your point, the constitution and civils rights act exist so you are saying theres no need to add the part that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation so why have the RFRA. you feel its not needed. SO same
 
Look at all the shouting the left end is doing over this law. I guess they must be wrong. In fact, I'm sure of it.

This law is not comparable to other states that have similar laws.
Discrimination is discrimination under the guise of Religious rights.
 
Okay, I will.

That should be legal.

I certainly don't approve of it, but there is no rational basis whatsover to compel them to give custom.

It is worth noting that during the time of Jim Crow laws commonly made such discrimination mandatory - that is equally unacceptable intrusion into the property rights of a business owner.


The free market is a voluntary exchange of goods, services, and property. The government has no business interfering with such voluntary exchanges.

My understanding is that there is a similar statute protecting religious values on the Federal level for federal employees and also that twenty-five states have similar statutes. It also doesn't cover civil liabilities and only restricts government's authority for use the power of government to make business owners act in ways in opposition to their religious values. I think the statute reinforces the first amendment and helps define the separation of church and state.
 
wouldnt that same answer apply to saying theres no need for the RFRA in the first place then?

My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

just like your point, the constitution and civils rights act exist so you are saying theres no need to add the part that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation so why have the RFRA. you feel its not needed. SO same

Mornin AJ :2wave: From Post 1957 the Pro Gay Rights Attorney and Law professor explained it out as to why Indiana needed it.



To further quell the left's hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA. I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?


The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law. Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks. If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration. But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis......snip~
 
wouldnt that same answer apply to saying theres no need for the RFRA in the first place then?

My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

just like your point, the constitution and civils rights act exist so you are saying theres no need to add the part that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation so why have the RFRA. you feel its not needed. SO same

RFRA is needed to protect citizens from government laws that are not necessarily religious in nature, but significantly burden a religious practice. Indiana's law added additional protection from civil suits.

Does it offer carte blanche to do whatever you want in the name of religion? Not in the least bit, as it only provides you with defense option to be weighed by the courts.
 
Last edited:
Shhh. If you listen, you can hear the free market speaking regarding Indiana's religion-based discrimination law.
 
That correlates to indoctrination, not intelligence

Like I said....you guys have no answer to counter the fact that the higher educated one is correlates directly with the political spectrum of "liberal". So when you don't have an answer...your only reply is "Its those gosh darn liberal colleges them liberals are all attendin"
 
Mornin AJ :2wave: From Post 1957 the Pro Gay Rights Attorney and Law professor explained it out as to why Indiana needed it.



To further quell the left's hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA. I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?


The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law. Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks. If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration. But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis......snip~

Morning MMC

well i can post links saying why its not needed and or why there should be an exclamation . . I asked you based on the logic you provided

secondly anything that starts of as saying "lefts hysteria, rights hysteria etc i instantly cant take as objective, honest and non biased, why would I.
Lastley theres nothign in there that actually tells me why these things are needed or as a christian since my rights are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

the legal standard already exists, the way the law is now is pretty clear for the most part
and his claim that its anything but a license to discriminate has already been proven false by one simple example.

before under illegal discrimination laws it was illegal for all to discriminate based on a defined criteria . . . .now you COULD possible illegal discriminate based on feelings and its not illegal anymore :shrug:

that in fact does seem like its a license to discriminate and if the argument is this doesnt change anything im again back to my original question, why is it actually needed.

Theres nothing in the explanation above that says what it does for me as a chrsitian that isnt already done. The "guidance" isnt needed as its already clear cut, by desing this will make it more complected. Before the bill it was clear what illegal discrimination was . . . . now . . . theres great potential for us not to know.
 
Admittedly not a scriptorian and one that has chapter and verse memorized, but were there a lot of verses where Jesus taught against the sin of prostitution? And yet...
Go forth...and sin no more.
What of the apostles? Did they teach on about sin? Was there mention of the sin of homosexuality?

Again...non religious people like to trot out religion...when it suits them.
You are assuming that I am "non-religious"....actually once again you are wrong. I have studied the life of Christ and try to live every day of my life in accordance with the example that he led. That is why it is disgusting to see the perversion of his name for the sake of politics.
 
Like I said....you guys have no answer to counter the fact that the higher educated one is correlates directly with the political spectrum of "liberal". So when you don't have an answer...your only reply is "Its those gosh darn liberal colleges them liberals are all attendin"
Maybe you missed it so I'll say it again. Higher education means higher indoctrination, not higher intelligence
 
I actually agree with the sentiment of your objection, I just wanted you to see where the other poster's attitude on the subject was coming from.

Quote Originally Posted by Blemonds View Post

Yes. All the words of the Bible are the words of Jesus

I don't see that claim coming from anybody who knows about the old testament - besides you and Blemonds.

In all of my short life, Blemonds is the first person I've ever seen or heard make that claim. So now you've supported it. Not sure that the scriptures you posted actually says that all the words in the bible or from Jesus. It just says that Jesus claimed he was with god or knew god prior to Abraham. What you're implying from your scriptures is related to a belief associated with Trinity. So be it. Personally, I don't really care what scriptures say that you choose to post. I'm not a subscriber.

However, I'm pretty sure that one saying "Jesus" was the inspirer of everything written in the bible...is not going to be agreeable with everybody.

So henceforth, every time someone says, "the bible was an inspiration of god - who actually penned the bible using man - I'll send'em your way for clarification. How's that?
 
I am a Christian and I understand that the whole Bible is the teachings of Christ

"Christian" in name only. Typical of those who love to wrap themselves in his name. You are the epitome of the Pharisees that Jesus often spoke of. Those who love to stand on the corner and pray loudly so that others may see them. Sad that you know almost nothing about the man who's name you take in vain.
 
1.)RFRA is needed to protect citizens from government laws that are not necessarily religious in nature, but significantly burden a religious practice. Indiana's law added additional protection from civil suits.
2.)Does it offer carte blanche to do whatever you want in the name of religion? Not in the least bit, as it only provides you with defense option to be weighed by the courts.

1.) what citzens are in danger of that when the constitution and nondiscrimination laws already do that
2.) no not what ever a person wants but does it in fact offer the possible ablity to illegal discriminating based on feelings and not have it be illegal any more. Yes.

so again i ask, My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

before the bill i couldnt illegally discriminate and violate the rights of people using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc
before the bill people couldnt illegally discriminate against me and violate my rights using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc

after the bill, now the possibility exists
 
Maybe you missed it so I'll say it again. Higher education means higher indoctrination, not higher intelligence

Exactly what I said....when you have no answer.....blame it on "those gosh darn liberal colleges that be edumacating the libruls"
 
You are assuming that I am "non-religious"....actually once again you are wrong. I have studied the life of Christ and try to live every day of my life in accordance with the example that he led. That is why it is disgusting to see the perversion of his name for the sake of politics.
Really. You must really like the part where he says "pick and choose whichever parts of the bible that dont conflict with your lifestyle choices."

The only perversion of his name can be seen on threads like this where people constantly try to trot out Christ as a weapon.

Go forth...and sin no more. He loved the prostitute...he promoted love. But he didnt excuse the sinful behavior. Ever.

Sin no more.
 
Really. You must really like the part where he says "pick and choose whichever parts of the bible that dont conflict with your lifestyle choices."

The only perversion of his name can be seen on threads like this where people constantly try to trot out Christ as a weapon.

Go forth...and sin no more. He loved the prostitute...he promoted love. But he didnt excuse the sinful behavior. Ever.

Sin no more.

Do you wanna show where Jesus spoke about homosexuality being a sin? Was it in the same place he spoke about the abomination of eating shellfish?
 
Simpleχity;1064479888 said:
Neighboring Illinois has a RFRA law. But it also has a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Texas and Missouri have RFRA laws. But they have sections in their RFRA laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Indiana has no such statewide/RFRA protections. Indiana legislators rejected such protections when deliberating the Indiana RFRA law.

One has to ask ... why?

I assume you're being rhetorical. The law was a bone tossed to the anti-SSM social conservative base Pence appeals to, but I'm pretty sure that was the point.
 
Back
Top Bottom