• 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

Listen close, Hatuey.

Go back and read my posts in this thread again. The scope of my comments includes potential situations where anti-gay marriage supporters are being discriminated against, and how the ACLU, etc might go about selecting a case.

Essentially you are having a discussion with yourself here. I recommend you read before you post.

You're trying too hard to avoid your slip up, doctor. You asked a hypothetical, and you got an answer consistent with various liberal governments, laws passed in liberal states, and views expressed by liberals. You decided to deny the answer based on an issue which had nothing to do with with sexual orientation. You even threw out the "fact" (and I used that term lightly in your case) that your "practice" to back up your rebuttal. What you didn't seem to know is that this issue has been settled in California as well as 14 other liberal states so asking how lefties would handle it makes you seem uneducated about laws in California AS WELL AS laws in other states. It's no sweat. Happens to everyone once in a while to forget information relevant to their field of work. :lol:
 
Considering that Mormons funded the proposition and the incredibly deceptive propoganda campaign...the criticism of Mormons was and is valid. Sorry.

You talk in another post about "people outside of the state can pound sand"....LOL....you do realize that almost all of the prop 8 funding came from outside of California, right?

Funding is another issue-its legal and I would be amazed to find out that the pro-SSM crowd isn't pouring funding into Indiana.

However, it was a proposition voted on by voters. Voters who have to be state residents. The prop passed because of the voters, not because of funding.
 
Funding is another issue-its legal and I would be amazed to find out that the pro-SSM crowd isn't pouring funding into Indiana.

However, it was a proposition voted on by voters. Voters who have to be state residents. The prop passed because of the voters, not because of funding.

Even many of the "voters" admit that they were taken in by the rhetoric of ads funded by outside parties that made wild claims about what would happen if same sex couples were able to get married.
 
You're trying too hard to avoid your slip up, doctor. You asked a hypothetical, and you got an answer consistent with various liberal governments, laws passed in liberal states, and views expressed by liberals. You decided to deny the answer based on an issue which had nothing to do with with sexual orientation. You even threw out the "fact" (and I used that term lightly in your case) that your "practice" to back up your rebuttal. What you didn't seem to know is that this issue has been settled in California as well as 14 other liberal states so asking how lefties would handle it makes you seem uneducated about laws in California AS WELL AS laws in other states. It's no sweat. Happens to everyone once in a while to forget information relevant to their field of work. :lol:

Hatuey, there was no slip up, you butted into a conversation in progress and made assumptions.
Im well familiar with the laws in my state, that was never even part of the discussion-you inferred that.
In fact, its apparent that you still dont understand this. Keep trying.
 

The fox news anchor is only slightly more informed and rational than his peers. Contributors to Fox (left and right) have badly mangled this issue (as has most everyone else) and made assumptions, claims, and sometimes fell all over themselves to demonstrate their 'inclusiveness' and 'love of diversity'. And I suppose this is understandable, given the level of idiocy and hysteria that has exploded.

BAIER: Well, Indiana's law is written a little differently. It is more broad. It is different than the federal law that it's close to, but different than, and also different than 19 other states and how the law is written.

Unfortunately, FOX has handled this issue as poorly as just about every other major news outlet. I've been astounded at the degree of pervasive ignorance and hysterical nonsense that has bloomed among the news reporting class. On one hand there has been the insightful legal analysis provided by law specialists and experts of stature, and on the other hand there has been idiot bloviation and fear mongering by just about everyone else.

Baier is correct but is incomplete and misleading, it is "written a little differently" than some, and not differently than others. NO RFRA is a duplicate of another, and all have their nuances. BUT those differences, when it comes to issues of gay discrimination, are nearly inconsequential. They are, in contrast, a tad more important when it comes to other issues, such as a Hobby Lobby like case at state level.

Jonathan Adler, an active attorney on behalf of the Constitutional right to gay marriage, provides a balanced and rational review of Indiana's law. He finds that:

- Contrary to Tim Cook's hyperbolic and ignorant statements, the claims he (and many others) have made against the new Indiana law are not accurate. Like other RFRAs, this law just requires that state laws meet the test of "a compelling state interest" in the least burdensome way. THAT IS the core of ALL RFRA law. See: Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation. For background on how these laws work:Some Background on Religious Exemption Law - The Volokh Conspiracy

- Courts have routinely upheld the application of nondiscrimination laws against RFRA-based challenges on the grounds that preventing discrimination is a compelling state interest. Of course it’s possible that a court in the future would reach a different conclusion, but there’s no reason to think such a result is likely, and there is nothing about the Indiana law that makes it a particular threat in this regard (not any more or less than in the 19 other states or through the the federal government).

- The Indiana RFRA is not identical to every other RFRA, but the textual differences are not particularly material to laws on on-discrimination. See this handy comparison: Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

- Some RFRA supporters do hope that such laws will allow individuals or companies to discriminate against homosexuals. But that is not what the text of the Indiana RFRA actually does. That’s important because courts don't apply hopes of a subset of supporters, they apply the text of the law as written. And this debate is somewhat moot in Indiana because it doesn’t have a state law barring sexual orientation discrimination on the books.

- Although it has yet to happen, could there be a scenario where a state level RFR might result in an individual business owner denying service to a same-sex couple? Perhaps. The most likely scenario would be something like a religious wedding planner refusing to help plan a wedding that violates his or her religious beliefs. But even if so, it nothing like that of the fears of Cook.

The differences are not especially material to the concerns of the gay lobby, but I will summarize them in a followup post.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey, there was no slip up, you butted into a conversation in progress and made assumptions.

I made no assumptions. You are welcome to show where I did, right after you're able to say whether the question was about Indiana or a state other California and the part of your question which suggests that. :)

Im well familiar with the laws in my state, that was never even part of the discussion-you inferred that.

No, what I actually said was that the question didn't say anything about any state. It asked what "lefties" would do in such a hypothetical. I and roguenuke responded in accordance with 15 states with liberal majorities. You rebutted with... you... practice? :lol:

In fact, its apparent that you still dont understand this. Keep trying.

You're dancing, doctor.
 
Even many of the "voters" admit that they were taken in by the rhetoric of ads funded by outside parties that made wild claims about what would happen if same sex couples were able to get married.

Many voters admit to being taken in by the rhetoric of ads for Obama.
Those are the rules, you can't play by them until it doesn't suit you.
Hence the lolz about the butthurt.

When the left uses the govt to coerce everyone, its "progress".
When the left isn't happy with the result of govt actions, its time to shriek.

You have to see how silly that looks.
 
And 30 miles is nothing, right next door in these days of awesome individual transportation and mobility.

Do you know any elderly or older black folks? If so, ask them about the humiliation, degradation and second class citizenship that was common with the "White's only" "Negro entrance" 'We don't serve coloreds" days. You would be OK going back to that? You find overt discrimination to be a "good thing" for a modern and civilized society? It wasn't that long ago when Sammy Davis Jr could play a hotel but wasn't allowed to stay there. That's the America that you want to live in?
 
Do you know any elderly or older black folks? If so, ask them about the humiliation, degradation and second class citizenship that was common with the "White's only" "Negro entrance" 'We don't serve coloreds" days. You would be OK going back to that? You find overt discrimination to be a "good thing" for a modern and civilized society? It wasn't that long ago when Sammy Davis Jr could play a hotel but wasn't allowed to stay there. That's the America that you want to live in?

White-Colored-Sep-Accom.jpg


Separate but equal was "freedom" too. ;)
 
Even many of the "voters" admit that they were taken in by the rhetoric of ads funded by outside parties that made wild claims about what would happen if same sex couples were able to get married.

You mean like fifteen to 20 million voters who found out they couldn't keep they're plan?

Admitting being fooled and blaming the fooler is kind of like being stupid and blaming the teacher
 
The fox news anchor is only slightly more informed and rational than his peers. Contributors to Fox (left and right) have badly mangled this issue (as has most everyone else) and made assumptions, claims, and sometimes fell all over themselves to demonstrate their 'inclusiveness' and 'love of diversity'. And I suppose this is understandable, given the level of idiocy and hysteria that has exploded.



Unfortunately, FOX has handled this issue as poorly as just about every other major news outlet. I've been astounded at the degree of pervasive ignorance and hysterical nonsense that has bloomed among the news reporting class. On one hand there has been the insightful legal analysis provided by law specialists and experts of stature, and on the other hand there has been idiot bloviation and fear mongering by just about everyone else.

Baier is correct but is incomplete and misleading, it is "written a little differently" than some, and not differently than others. NO RFRA is a duplicate of another, and all have their nuances. BUT those differences, when it comes to issues of gay discrimination, are nearly inconsequential. They are, in contrast, a tad more important when it comes to other issues, such as a Hobby Lobby like case at state level.

Jonathan Adler, an active attorney on behalf of the Constitutional right to gay marriage, provides a balanced and rational review of Indiana's law. He finds that:

- Contrary to Tim Cook's hyperbolic and ignorant statements, the claims he (and many others) have made against the new Indiana law are not accurate. Like other RFRAs, this law just requires that state laws meet the test of "a compelling state interest" in the least burdensome way. THAT IS the core of ALL RFRA law. See: Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation. For background on how these laws work:Some Background on Religious Exemption Law - The Volokh Conspiracy

- Courts have routinely upheld the application of nondiscrimination laws against RFRA-based challenges on the grounds that preventing discrimination is a compelling state interest. Of course it’s possible that a court in the future would reach a different conclusion, but there’s no reason to think such a result is likely, and there is nothing about the Indiana law that makes it a particular threat in this regard (not any more or less than in the 19 other states or through the the federal government).

- The Indiana RFRA is not identical to every other RFRA, but the textual differences are not particularly material to laws on on-discrimination. See this handy comparison: Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

- Some RFRA supporters do hope that such laws will allow individuals or companies to discriminate against homosexuals. But that is not what the text of the Indiana RFRA actually does. That’s important because courts don't apply hopes of a subset of supporters, they apply the text of the law as written. And this debate is somewhat moot in Indiana because it doesn’t have a state law barring sexual orientation discrimination on the books.

- Although it has yet to happen, could there be a scenario where a state level RFR might result in an individual business owner denying service to a same-sex couple? Perhaps. The most likely scenario would be something like a religious wedding planner refusing to help plan a wedding that violates his or her religious beliefs. But even if so, it nothing like that of the fears of Cook.

The differences are not especially material to the concerns of the gay lobby, but I will summarize them in a followup post.

Im going to post some links in response to this-so people can gain some insight into this law, and the history of RFRA.

Indiana SB 101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You mean like fifteen to 20 million voters who found out they couldn't keep they're plan?

Admitting being fooled and blaming the fooler is kind of like being stupid and blaming the teacher

In the context of this law, its particularly ironic.
The left introduced RFRA, and this bill was an unintended consequence of that.

They dont like the results, so now they are up in arms. :lol:
 
Do you know any elderly or older black folks? If so, ask them about the humiliation, degradation and second class citizenship that was common with the "White's only" "Negro entrance" 'We don't serve coloreds" days. You would be OK going back to that? You find overt discrimination to be a "good thing" for a modern and civilized society? It wasn't that long ago when Sammy Davis Jr could play a hotel but wasn't allowed to stay there. That's the America that you want to live in?

the best part is, even if any of the poorly written bills accomplish this for a very short time, AMERICA is NEVER going back to that . .. . any bill/law that allows that will be short lived no matter what dishonest BS "REASON" it is based on including religion.

The bigots, pro-discrimination and anti-equal rights people are just frustrated they are getting thier asses handed to them and their "feelings" are in the minority. These desperate little things are just last second attempts to hold on a smidge longer but the reality equal rights is winning and discrimination against gays/sexual orientation is on its way it and they cant stop it. Id say at the very longest, after equal rights for SSM passes this summer 2015, summer of 2018 will be the absolute longest this crap goes on and it will be illegal to discriminate against gays just based off of sexual orientation. They lost and lost big and they just cant help themselves but to add further embarrassment to thier dishonest causes. The irony is they will actually HELP equal rights in the longer run, thier idiocy and bigotry is what will be challenged just like SSM bannings and lead to victory. I myself LOVE watching them squirm, kick and scream, they know its almost over and they lost.
 
White-Colored-Sep-Accom.jpg


Separate but equal was "freedom" too. ;)



WTF does "was" have anything to do with the current debate?

One day and hopefully soon you will stop trying to hijack threads to a topic you feel comfortable with.

I suspect you'd have a problem with someone refusing service to someone who couldn't pay....**** that's discrimination against income in-equality.

Get on that
 
No. Forcing a person to actually be involved in a same sex marriage would be similar to forcing them to be in the military. This is like a conscientious objector taking it a step further and saying they shouldn't have to pay taxes because their tax money is going, at least in part, to paying for our country to kill people in wars. After all, their tax dollars are supporting those wars without them being able to determine where their specific tax money goes.

No, its not. The baker or photographer were not refusing to pay taxes that go to civil ceremonies conducted by the State, they are refusing to physically (in body) create and make a product for the purpose of celebrating a gay wedding. And in the case of the photographer, she was refusing to physically attend the wedding and participate by taking photos.

Both are being conscripted by the government, on behalf of the gay couple, to serve their beliefs and cultural practices.
 
WTF does "was" have anything to do with the current debate?

One day and hopefully soon you will stop trying to hijack threads to a topic you feel comfortable with.

I suspect you'd have a problem with someone refusing service to someone who couldn't pay....**** that's discrimination against income in-equality.

Get on that

VUvGObQ.gif
 
Arkansas Governor Hutchison now changes mind on signing his own state's bill that he said he would previously sign.
Think WAL-MART may have changed his mind ?
 
WTF does "was" have anything to do with the current debate?

One day and hopefully soon you will stop trying to hijack threads to a topic you feel comfortable with.

I suspect you'd have a problem with someone refusing service to someone who couldn't pay....**** that's discrimination against income in-equality.

Get on that

It's very relevant in that these types of signs can now start dotting businesses throughout Indiana, but having "Negro" replaced with "gay" and/or "homo's". And to the second bolded, straight up strawman.
 
Someday, a Muslim business owner will use this law to impose Sharia. Then the right will blame this law on liberals.
 
WTF does "was" have anything to do with the current debate?

One day and hopefully soon you will stop trying to hijack threads to a topic you feel comfortable with.

I suspect you'd have a problem with someone refusing service to someone who couldn't pay....**** that's discrimination against income in-equality.

Get on that

You might remind him that none of the signs say "No FAGS Served Here".

That alone conveys the overwrought hysteria of the gay lobby and their fellow travlers.
 
Back
Top Bottom