• 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

tres borrachos said:
Will Hillary overturn the RFRA if she becomes President, I wonder?
Click to expand...

I think you mean "will Congress..." - she can't overturn RFRA. And a better question is whether Pres. Cruz would repeal the Executive orders protecting gays in the Federal workforce and federal contractors and granting LGBT some Federal benefits.
 
Fearandloathing said:
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
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. In fact, we actually have laws against "fooling" someone in certain situations.

But again, it doesn't matter because the law is unconstitutional. Restricting marriage based on the relative sexes of people is just as unconstitutional as restricting marriage on the relative races of people. There is no valid state interest at all served by doing so.
 
US Conservative said:
I am not denying that there was a veto-proof majority that voted for the law, im saying Clinton signed it in (and bragged about it for his own political gain in an election), and all on his own made dont as dont tell the official policy of the US govt.

How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

I said you wouldn't read it - and you didn't.

Your question shows it.
 
US Conservative said:
Im in California. My 2nd amendment protected rights are violated every day because of lefty rhetoric. Its hard to get a CCW, I can't own magazines over 10 rounds, and my AR15 has to have a funny grip installed. When the federal AWB expired, lefties shrieked that teens would be "machine gunning" each other down in the streets. Not only did that not happen, but crime dropped. The left claimed CCW would turn people into cowboys-not only did that NOT happen, crime dropped.

NONE of those restrictions are based in any FACT regarding safety but rather lefty rhetoric. If the left could get away with it-it would ban guns in my state-the lefts legislators have said as much.



So excuse me if I find your appeal to be lacking.
Click to expand...


Then challenge it. I am actually for less restrictive gun laws and a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but don't let me ruin your partisan rant.
 
US Conservative said:
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:
Click to expand...

And the right couldn't even copy that correctly.
 
US Conservative said:
I am not denying that there was a veto-proof majority that voted for the law, im saying Clinton signed it in (and bragged about it for his own political gain in an election), and all on his own made dont as dont tell the official policy of the US govt.

How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

Please show where he "bragged" about signing DOMA into law. He refused to even to sign it publicly. Most Presidents make a big press deal out of bills they sign that they are "proud" of. Heck, so do governors, Governor Pence providing the perfect example with this law. And there was plenty of support at that time for a Constitutional Amendment. Had Clinton not signed it, it is more than possible and even very likely that Congress would have passed a Constitutional Amendment. With DOMA in place, til support for same sex marriage could increase (and anyone with half a brain could tell even at that time which way that was headed), it was a way to stave off a Constitutional Amendment making it much harder to get repealed.

And DADT was a compromise at the time so that recruiters couldn't actually ask those trying to join up if they are gay/homosexual (and yes, that was asked, and completely legal to turn someone away for answering before). It also didn't allow people in the military, including a person's chain of command to ask if someone were gay/homosexual and have that legally held against them. It made such a question illegal for the military to ask of a servicemember so that gay service members could actually serve, without lying about it, so long as they didn't come out and declare themselves gay/homosexual in a way that was a matter of public record. It also allowed for Clinton to remove the restriction on being gay as a qualifier for serving in pretty much all federal government jobs, including making it against the law to use as a reason to deny a person a security clearance of any kind.
 
Fletch said:
You are incorrect. The baker didn't refuse to sell a cake to a person BECAUSE they were gay. There is a difference between refusing to serve gays and refusing to sell your services to the furtherance of a gay event. The former is a form of bigotry, the latter a matter of conscience. Liberals just have a very tough time telling the two apart because so few things are a matter of conscience to them
Click to expand...

I am not incorrect, as the court rulings have clearly shown. They refused on the basis that they felt that a gay person was wrong to get married, to hold that particular event. It was based solely on the people involved in the event, not the event itself. They are being refused a product from the bakery due to their sexuality/relative sexes. Just because they could purchase other products, doesn't mean that it isn't still illegal to refuse service to someone based on their sexuality in the states of Oregon and Colorado.
 
disneydude said:
Click to expand...


Ah. Good ole Stephanopolous doing what he does. As I recall, he was the one who tried to insert birth control into the last Republican primary as well.

And some neat selective editing, as well :)
 
US Conservative said:
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:
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that they don't like the results so much as it is that they really really really need to change the subject from Iran, Yemen, and Hillary's emails.
 
roguenuke said:
Please show where he "bragged" about signing DOMA into law. He refused to even to sign it publicly. Most Presidents make a big press deal out of bills they sign that they are "proud" of. Heck, so do governors, Governor Pence providing the perfect example with this law. And there was plenty of support at that time for a Constitutional Amendment. Had Clinton not signed it, it is more than possible and even very likely that Congress would have passed a Constitutional Amendment. With DOMA in place, til support for same sex marriage could increase (and anyone with half a brain could tell even at that time which way that was headed), it was a way to stave off a Constitutional Amendment making it much harder to get repealed.

And DADT was a compromise at the time so that recruiters couldn't actually ask those trying to join up if they are gay/homosexual (and yes, that was asked, and completely legal to turn someone away for answering before). It also didn't allow people in the military, including a person's chain of command to ask if someone were gay/homosexual and have that legally held against them. It made such a question illegal for the military to ask of a servicemember so that gay service members could actually serve, without lying about it, so long as they didn't come out and declare themselves gay/homosexual in a way that was a matter of public record. It also allowed for Clinton to remove the restriction on being gay as a qualifier for serving in pretty much all federal government jobs, including making it against the law to use as a reason to deny a person a security clearance of any kind.
Click to expand...

As for the brag, see the link I provided. It was the 90's so I doubt a youtube clip exists, but you are welcome to look for it.

DADT suppressed the rights of gays, which the left claims is a bad thing. He could have just ordered that gays would be admitted to the military. Its clear many in the left regret DADT, if you google it you will see that.

Yes, the 90's was 15+ years ago, but up until an election 2 years ago, Obama was against gay marriage. Not against selling gays wedding cakes-but the actual marriage.
 
disneydude said:
You obviously don't....because if you knew that very most basic things about the man you wouldn't be espousing the view that you are. Jesus would be ashamed at the actions that are being taken in his name. You guys are an absolute mockery to the man you claim to worship. You are correct about 1 thing though....religious freedom does not equal bigotry....but those who seek to hide behind their religion as a shield to discriminate are in the most purest form bigots.
Click to expand...

One need not hide behind "religion", religious freedom guaranteed in the 1st amendment. What on earth could be wrong with the courts considering religious objections to participating in events that one finds objectionable to ones conscience in view of their sincere religious beliefs? That is a principal reason why the religious migrated to the colonies in the first place.

Secondly I find your line of questioning telling. You asked me WWJD, as if this law is about Christians against gays. It isn't, it's about all religions and its about any government oppression directed at the religious.

Do you think all religious have an obligation to agree with views espoused by government officials?
Do you support government directing religious practice?
Do you support government criminalizing the views of the religious?

Answer Please
 
roguenuke said:
Almost certainly there are at least a few businesses in Indiana that would like to deny same sex couples/homosexuals their services, the ability to buy something, even if it is something specific, from them. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been people supporting it for that very reason, such as those three men already identified.
Click to expand...

yet no businesses have come out and even hinted at wanting to deny services.... not a single one.
 
MMC said:
Good news!
yes.gif


Arkansas has seen how the left and the LameStream has played with this issue and now their Senate just passed an RFRA. Which their Governor says he will sign the Bill. Get it to him Pronto-like.

That should cause the left to go off on another tangent.....huh?
evil6.gif
Click to expand...

As a decided not to sign until it was "fixed"! LOL!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom