• 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

eohrnberger said:
Based on this:


The way forward is clear, pass legislation that makes LGBT a protected class in Indiana. Not torpedo someone's legitimate legislation on the bases of it doing something that it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Then the law was flawed from the beginning.
Do you think this was not discussed?
 
hosh.24 said:
This is obviously a very controversial topic. And there are obviously many varying opinions. But, based on the fact that this bill will give business owners the right to deny service to pretty much anyone they choose under the basis of "religious freedom" they could deny service to African-Americans, Americans, Heterosexuals, males, and females, etc. Now I think we can all agree that people who fall under the above mentioned ethnicities, sexual orientations, and genders would have a hissy fit if they were denied access/service. Be it what you are, would you not be a tad bit angry if your favorite restaurant decided they would no longer serve you because of what/who you are?
Click to expand...

I'd rather not be accommodated than be served a turd sandwich that they called spam. Because as unlikely as wide-spread discrimination will happen, I suspect getting crappy service and poor product will.
 
hosh.24 said:
But its okay for homosexuals to be denied the same service, correct?
Click to expand...

That is something for each state to decide, but I don't know of any state that has not always imposed the common law requirements I mentioned. They only date from about 1600.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
About a dozen CEO's have come out and blasted this law, yet conservatives who say the private sector is always right and the government is always wrong are now saying Indiana is right and the CEO's are wrong.

Hate is a strong motivator.
Click to expand...

So businesses are coming out against discrimination? Gosh, were libertarians says for years now that discrimination is not accepted in the private sector? They were you say? Wow, who would have thought that liberals were wrong.
 
disneydude said:
Why are you trying to equate homosexuality with prostitution. A close analogy would be adultry with prostitution. Funny thing is...most of the bigots have no problem serving adulterers.

Along the same lines....most of these businesses have no problem serving any plethora of "sinners". If you have an issue with people who commit "sins" then going into business is probably a bad idea. Oh wait....I get it....they only don't want to serve "those" "sinners".
Click to expand...
:lamo

Thats as stupid as you thinking someone is equating homosexuality to bestiality. It is not EQUAL...except in that they are described as 'sin'

Now...I take it by your insistence at diversion that you CANT find anywhere where Christ preached against prostitution and YET...still told the prostitute to go forth...and sin no more.

Sin no more. Thats the part you hate. Thats the part you always ignore.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Many of Jesus's teachings in the New Testament are 180 degrees from what's in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

I think not. Jesus was a Jew.

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
 
freeRadical said:
SCOTUS can't write anything into the Constitution
Click to expand...

Indeed they can, and have since they first invoked Madison v Marbury as precedent. They simply interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish. They've done it with pretty much the entire document. Copyright is a good example. The Constitution is explicit that a copyright will be held for 14 years before it becomes a part of the public domain. The SCOTUS rewrote that section to mean congress could name any amount of time at will.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Thats as stupid as you thinking someone is equating homosexuality to bestiality. It is not EQUAL...except in that they are described as 'sin'

Now...I take it by your insistence at diversion that you CANT find anywhere where Christ preached against prostitution and YET...still told the prostitute to go forth...and sin no more.

Sin no more. Thats the part you hate. Thats the part you always ignore.
Click to expand...

You just set up an even more ridiculous position. If a business doesn't want to do business with a "sinner"....then they are probably in the wrong business. Or are we talking about a differentiation among "sins"? The bottom line is that it is completely "un-christian" to turn someone away because you think that they are "icky".
 
Simpleχity;1064481086 said:
What they should have done from the jump. But they stupidly went ahead anyway while never anticipating a national backlash.
Click to expand...
Definitely a miscalculation on their part. No denying it. Timing, as they say, is everything.
freeRadical said:
Protected classes flies in the face of equality under the law.
Click to expand...
I agree, at the risk of getting shouted down by all those on the left.
 
WCH said:
Like Catholics and other Christians in name only....

We're talking about major eternal damnation tenets.
Click to expand...

"in name only".... :roll:

It's unclear to me how something barely mentioned in the Bible becomes a "major" eternal damnation tenet. This has frankly always baffled me. At its core, homosexuality (and heterosexuality) is about who someone loves. If you cannot love the 'correct' gender, you're damned to eternal hell unless you live a life alone, without intimacy? We all have different beliefs, but I can't accept that. If that means I'm damned as well, I guess that's the price I'll have to pay. It is the least of my concerns about judgment day.
 
JasperL said:
"in name only".... :roll:

It's unclear to me how something barely mentioned in the Bible becomes a "major" eternal damnation tenet. This has frankly always baffled me. At its core, homosexuality (and heterosexuality) is about who someone loves. If you cannot love the 'correct' gender, you're damned to eternal hell unless you live a life alone, without intimacy? We all have different beliefs, but I can't accept that. If that means I'm damned as well, I guess that's the price I'll have to pay. It is the least of my concerns about judgment day.
Click to expand...

Barely mentioned?

https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

Fortunately if you chose to quit supporting it [or practicing it if that were the case] you would be forgiven and wouldn't have to worry about that facet at all.
 
disneydude said:
You just set up an even more ridiculous position. If a business doesn't want to do business with a "sinner"....then they are probably in the wrong business. Or are we talking about a differentiation among "sins"? The bottom line is that it is completely "un-christian" to turn someone away because you think that they are "icky".
Click to expand...
However as Christ demonstrated it is COMPLETELY appropriate to expect that the sinner go forth and sin no more. You cant find ANYWHERE were Christ said, hey...man...its cool...change that money in the temple. Or hey...you know what..go forth...and what is your Saturday special for hummers? No...he said...go forth...and sin no more.

Sin no more.

If you are going to KEEP bringing Christ into this argument as your standard bearer you are goign to have to deal with the TOTALITY of his comment...not just the parts you like.

I dont differentiate between 'sins'. I dont define sins. Its not my place. Point of fact...I dont think the rules given to us were given as punishment or rule AGAINST sin. Your lifestyle choice is not a sin against me and to be direct...I think the cake baker is silly for turning the business away. That being said...I respect his or her right to do so, legally, and without government intervention. If you and the rest of the guys want to gather up a boycott and shriek and protest...be my guess. Odds are...all you will do is create an environment where that business gets a GREATER outpouring of support and love because frankly...people are tired of your bull****.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

He acknowledged that the law, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, had become a threat to the state’s reputation and economy, with companies and organizations signaling that they would avoid Indiana in response to it. Mr. Pence said he had been on the phone with business leaders from around the country, adding, “We want to make it clear that Indiana’s open for business.”

Like the Republican legislative leaders who said on Monday that they intended to clarify the law, the governor said he could not say what form that clarification might take. “The language is still being worked out,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
JoeTrumps said:
what would happen if a Muslim or Jewish bakery refused to make a cake for a gay wedding? one thing I know for certain: the liberal "outrage"(remember when it took EFFORT to be outraged? those were the days) would not be nearly as hyperbolic. The gays have a problem with the EVIL CHRISTIANS only, for reasons only a certified psychiatrist could explain.
Click to expand...

Probably wouldn't take a psychologist. I'm not one and the "problem" gays have with some small number of vocal, politically active Christians is they want to enshrine their religious beliefs in the law, and have fought for any expansion of civil rights for the LGBT community. In other words, this small but powerful sliver of the Christian community is working directly opposed to the self interest of gays. So their "problem" is no more complicated than the problem the NRA crowd has with gun control advocates.
 
WCH said:
Barely mentioned?

https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

Fortunately if you chose to quit supporting it [or practicing it if that were the case] you would be forgiven and wouldn't have to worry about that facet at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, barely mentioned. It's a long book, and you've cited a handful of passages. But OK, we're not going to change each others' mind on the matter.

I'll just add that I don't "support" homosexuality. I accept it as a given, something that makes a person who he or she IS, who they love. I don't judge them for who they love any more than I judge you or anyone else. It's just part of who they are.

One more edit - it can be boiled down to this, really - I made no choice, and did nothing good or bad by BEING a heterosexual. It's just part of who I AM. Similarly, gays had no choice in who they ARE, and that preference about who they love is, identically, neither good nor bad. It's no more good or bad than their brown hair or blue eyes or height of 5'9". To believe otherwise would be to damn them for something they had no part in choosing - same as damning them for being black or short or with big ears. The only other alternative is to expect gays to live a life alone, without intimacy. I can't wish that on anyone because I know how special my relationship with my wife is, and how much that intimate relationship adds to my life. It would be cruel to DEMAND that others with a different orientation live a live alone.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
However as Christ demonstrated it is COMPLETELY appropriate to expect that the sinner go forth and sin no more. You cant find ANYWHERE were Christ said, hey...man...its cool...change that money in the temple. Or hey...you know what..go forth...and what is your Saturday special for hummers? No...he said...go forth...and sin no more.

Sin no more.

If you are going to KEEP bringing Christ into this argument as your standard bearer you are goign to have to deal with the TOTALITY of his comment...not just the parts you like.

I dont differentiate between 'sins'. I dont define sins. Its not my place. Point of fact...I dont think the rules given to us were given as punishment or rule AGAINST sin. Your lifestyle choice is not a sin against me and to be direct...I think the cake baker is silly for turning the business away. That being said...I respect his or her right to do so, legally, and without government intervention. If you and the rest of the guys want to gather up a boycott and shriek and protest...be my guess. Odds are...all you will do is create an environment where that business gets a GREATER outpouring of support and love because frankly...people are tired of your bull****.
Click to expand...

No....the Bull **** that people are tired of is people who still think it is ok to discriminate in this country. That is why Indiana is facing the wrath of the nation. Pence is such an idiot, he thought he could pass this through without there being any outcry. Maybe in 1940 but not in 2015. In 2015 people in this country are tired of the bigots and people who preach hate. So now what we are seeing is people trying to hide behind religion and use it as a shield to implement their bigotry. Sorry...but America saw right through this ploy and isn't buying it.

People who invoke the name of Christ and seek to wrap themselves in his name are using his name in vain. Anyone who has even studied the life of the man for more than 5 minutes knows full well that he would never condone this kind of activity. I know the "totality of his comments" and I know that Christ never preached hatred and never preached shunning someone because you find them "icky". The vast majority of Christ's teaching were about being a good person, loving your neighbor, treating people with dignity and respect, charity and service. Christ was less concerned with pointing his fingers at the "sinners" and more about pointing his finger at the Pharisees who would stand on the corner and pray loudly in public so that others will look upon them. Today's "Christians" are the Pharisees of modern times. They are more concerned about politics and perverting his name than they are about striving to emulate any of his life/teachings.
 
Ok liberals, why are anti-discrimination laws needed if the private sector is rejecting discrimination? Please explain to me exactly why your laws are justified when your entire premise doesn't seem to exist to any meaningful level. I'm sorry, but arguing that the private sector is rejecting discrimination all on it's own and then arguing that the private sector would not reject discrimination without law makes no sense.
 
disneydude said:
No....the Bull **** that people are tired of is people who still think it is ok to discriminate in this country. That is why Indiana is facing the wrath of the nation. Pence is such an idiot, he thought he could pass this through without there being any outcry. Maybe in 1940 but not in 2015. In 2015 people in this country are tired of the bigots and people who preach hate. So now what we are seeing is people trying to hide behind religion and use it as a shield to implement their bigotry. Sorry...but America saw right through this ploy and isn't buying it.

People who invoke the name of Christ and seek to wrap themselves in his name are using his name in vain. Anyone who has even studied the life of the man for more than 5 minutes knows full well that he would never condone this kind of activity. I know the "totality of his comments" and I know that Christ never preached hatred and never preached shunning someone because you find them "icky". The vast majority of Christ's teaching were about being a good person, loving your neighbor, treating people with dignity and respect, charity and service. Christ was less concerned with pointing his fingers at the "sinners" and more about pointing his finger at the Pharisees who would stand on the corner and pray loudly in public so that others will look upon them. Today's "Christians" are the Pharisees of modern times. They are more concerned about politics and perverting his name than they are about striving to emulate any of his life/teachings.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of that, but I don't think the problem is Christians or Christianity. I'm lucky enough to know a lot of extraordinary people, most of them Christian, who devote their lives to service, and the 'bigoted' wing that makes so much noise doesn't speak for them or their beliefs.

So if you edited it, "Some of today's most vocal Christians in the political arena are the Pharisees of our times," I'd be all in with that... I think it's an important distinction, actually.
 
JasperL said:
I agree with much of that, but I don't think the problem is Christians or Christianity. I'm lucky enough to know a lot of extraordinary people, most of them Christian, who devote their lives to service, and the 'bigoted' wing that makes so much noise doesn't speak for them or their beliefs.

So if you edited it, "Some of today's most vocal Christians in the political arena are the Pharisees of our times," I'd be all in with that... I think it's an important distinction, actually.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I myself am Christian, but I refuse to label myself "Christian" because too many of the people who adopt the label have perverted his message for their political purposes. In my experiences, most good Christians rarely feel the need to let everyone know that they are "Christian" because they understand that the best way to get the message out is to live their lives according to the actual teachings of Christ. As they say....actions speak louder than words (Something that todays Pharisees do not comprehend).
 
Henrin said:
Ok liberals, why are anti-discrimination laws needed if the private sector is rejecting discrimination? Please explain to me exactly why your laws are justified when your entire premise doesn't seem to exist to any meaningful level. I'm sorry, but arguing that the private sector is rejecting discrimination all on it's own and then arguing that the private sector would not reject discrimination without law makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It isn't so much that they are NEEDED...but that we as an enlightened society DEMAND. We are sick and tired of the Bigots and their BS. This is why Indiana is facing the wrath of the nation.

Sometimes you have to stand up for what is right.
 
disneydude said:
It isn't so much that they are NEEDED...but that we as an enlightened society DEMAND. We are sick and tired of the Bigots and their BS. This is why Indiana is facing the wrath of the nation.
Click to expand...

So liberals are aware that discrimination is not accepted in the marketplace and that if anti-discrimination laws were to be repealed nothing bad would happen, but they demand them anyway? Ok??? I don't get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom