• 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

Liars have won this round?
Tell Gov. Hutchison in Arkansas he is a liar.

I have many wonderful memories in my neighboring state of Indiana, especially in beautiful Brown County,
where we would go to Bill Monroe's Bluegrass Festival back in the day.

And, my wife and I STILL go to rock concerts near Noblesville--she loved Heart and put up with Def Leppard .

As usual, Kathleen Parker is the voice of reason.

Parker: Dear Indiana, compassion goes both ways
 
As a decided not to sign until it was "fixed"! LOL!!

Yeah, those crazy lefty liberal hippies owners of Walmart and their Corporation put pressure on Hutchinson so now he's decide to 'fix' the bill.

Those liberals like the Waltons are the reason this whole issue is such a mess. ;)
 
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.

No. They voluntarily offered their services to the public, which means they do not get to pick and choose who they believe the "public" should be. The New Mexico courts all agree with me.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf

{21}Elane Photography also poses another hypothetical situation in support of its argument. The hypothetical involves an African-American photographer’s refusal to photograph a Ku-Klux-Klan rally because the photographer wanted to “refrain from using her photography to communicate a message that she finds deeply offensive.” Elane Photography claims that “t would be absurd to find (and this Court would, no doubt, decline to conclude) that the photographer discriminated against the Klan member because of his race.” This argument fails as a matter of law. As the district court stated that “[o]nce one offers a service publicly, they must do so without impermissible exception. Therefore, [Elane Photography] could refuse to photograph animals or even small children, just as an architect could design only commercial buildings and not private residences.” What Elane Photography’s hypothetical fails to address is the fact that, like animals, small children, and private residences, the Ku-Klux-Klan is not a protected class. Sexual orientation, however, is protected.


Hell, the co-owner of the photography business, the photographer's husband, said they wouldn't even photograph two women holding hands, even if they weren't lesbians, gay, because it appeared as if they were.

Gay marriage photographer case: When does religious freedom become anti-gay discrimination?

And if "civil unions" are the same thing as marriages, except for in name, but the word "marriage" should belong solely to opposite sex couples, as some have pushed for (now that they recognize that support for same sex marriage holds a majority), then the fact that this wasn't even a marriage that she was being asked to photograph, but rather a "commitment ceremony", and refused, and in fact tried several times to use the words interchangably in her testimony, claiming that she would only refuse to photograph a wedding, then we see the real issue. It has nothing to do with the use of the word "marriage". The couple hiring Elane Photography referred to their ceremony as a "commitment ceremony", not a wedding.
 
As usual, Kathleen Parker is the voice of reason.

Parker: Dear Indiana, compassion goes both ways


well written and i agree with all of it

excerpt from the article


If even a few Christians, Jews or Muslims understand marriage to be the sacred union of man and woman in the eyes of God, activists seeking a fresh definition shouldn’t expect an immediate surrender. This doesn’t justify the refusal of a wedding cake, the baking of which hardly qualifies as an endorsement, but nor does it justify charges of bigotry, as is often said of religious people struggling with profound social restructuring.

This isn’t an excuse for what is, in fact, discrimination by any other name. It is an attempt at compassion sorely missing from most discussions of this and other laws that try to carve out a tiny space for people whose religious beliefs are being put asunder. As gay activist and conservative author Andrew Sullivan wrote last year, “We should give them [religious believers] space.”

Such as by, say, going to another bakery?

The market ultimately may settle these matters before the courts do. Pence’s latest move was prompted by corporate pressure as well as a few boycotts on state-funded travel to the Hoosier state.


the vast majority of businesses will never have an issue with SSM

the few that do, do so because of beliefs of owners/management

i cant imagine the stress some of these people have come under because of these issues

you can bet they werent looking for the notoriety....
 
well written and i agree with all of it

excerpt from the article


If even a few Christians, Jews or Muslims understand marriage to be the sacred union of man and woman in the eyes of God, activists seeking a fresh definition shouldn’t expect an immediate surrender. This doesn’t justify the refusal of a wedding cake, the baking of which hardly qualifies as an endorsement, but nor does it justify charges of bigotry, as is often said of religious people struggling with profound social restructuring.

This isn’t an excuse for what is, in fact, discrimination by any other name. It is an attempt at compassion sorely missing from most discussions of this and other laws that try to carve out a tiny space for people whose religious beliefs are being put asunder. As gay activist and conservative author Andrew Sullivan wrote last year, “We should give them [religious believers] space.”

Such as by, say, going to another bakery?

The market ultimately may settle these matters before the courts do. Pence’s latest move was prompted by corporate pressure as well as a few boycotts on state-funded travel to the Hoosier state.


the vast majority of businesses will never have an issue with SSM

the few that do, do so because of beliefs of owners/management

i cant imagine the stress some of these people have come under because of these issues

you can bet they werent looking for the notoriety....

Andrew Sullivan came out with some great reads after that incident in California (I think) where a high level executive had to leave his job because he had donated to Prop 8 years ago. Sullivan is a man whose words on the subject I respect. He was one of the very first people to come out publicly in support of gay marriage a few decades ago, and since then he has remained slow and steady on this issue. His writings were what actually made me realize that SSM should be legal. His arguments are calm and forceful, but they're based in logic and pragmatism instead of hysterics, over the top hypotheticals, and screaming. He has been saying over and over that this has gotten out of control, and that the religious people are entitled to their beliefs.
 
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.

The 90s, when this happened, was more like 20 years ago.

I don't care what any politician claimed to be for or against years ago. Especially not ones that I didn't even vote for. But again, don't let me interrupt yet another partisan rant.

As for DADT, had Clinton attempted to just allow gays to serve openly in the military, he would have faced a lot of opposition (hell we had to do an entire study on it for over a year to get rid of DADT 2-3 years ago). He did not have the power to change the UCMJ like that, which at the time didn't even come into opposition with a ruling the SCOTUS had made saying that laws against sodomy, which were in the UCMJ, did not violate the Constitution. That ruling was in 2003.
 
The 90s, when this happened, was more like 20 years ago.

I don't care what any politician claimed to be for or against years ago. Especially not ones that I didn't even vote for. But again, don't let me interrupt yet another partisan rant.

As for DADT, had Clinton attempted to just allow gays to serve openly in the military, he would have faced a lot of opposition (hell we had to do an entire study on it for over a year to get rid of DADT 2-3 years ago). He did not have the power to change the UCMJ like that, which at the time didn't even come into opposition with a ruling the SCOTUS had made saying that laws against sodomy, which were in the UCMJ, did not violate the Constitution. That ruling was in 2003.

Well let this serve as a reminder-the left seeks to introduce social change through the coercion of govt-sometimes that ends up differently than intended.
As for DADT, you have to see the irony in admitting he did it for political expediency. Which goes to show that politicians rarely make stands based on personal convictions. Clinton was playing politics, then and now.
 
Well let this serve as a reminder-the left seeks to introduce social change through the coercion of govt-sometimes that ends up differently than intended.
As for DADT, you have to see the irony in admitting he did it for political expediency. Which goes to show that politicians rarely make stands based on personal convictions. Clinton was playing politics, then and now.

He is a politician. That is what they do, plan/play politics. Anyone who thinks any politician, Democrat, Republican, or other (with some rare exceptions, usually falling in the "other" category) make reasonable stands based on their personal convictions is naive at best, a complete dupe at worst. There are some that make a stand on personal convictions in a way that is completely irrational, and not going to be a good candidate for actually caring about the interests of all the people they represent, or even most of them, because most of them are of the idea that they were elected because every single person that voted for them agrees with absolutely everything they have said or done. Doing this then makes them an idiot or just crazy (some specific politicians come to mind for this one).

Change happens. The "left" saw the direction the wind was shifting when it came to gay rights. Heck, so did the right, hence DOMA. Even then, those my age supported same sex marriage in higher numbers than our parents, despite being in high school. Some did this because of peer influence (we had a pretty openly gay guy in my high school that was pretty respected, even in a western-NC high school (we were still having issues with people not approving of interracial relationships, which ironically enough the guy who was gay was mixed race, raised by his white grandparents)).

Media was showing this change in attitude towards homosexuality. Heck, it was the 1990s sitcoms that introduced many of those my age to the concept of not just gay marriage, but even different family types, especially for those raised in nuclear families (which actually wasn't me). The first same sex wedding on US TV was in 1991, on "Roc". We had three men raising three little girls on "Full House", even claiming in either the 2nd or 3rd episode to each be Stephanie's father. Both Roseanne and Friends had same sex weddings in the mid-90s. And Roseanne had at least two regular gay characters (and wasn't the sister bisexual?). Shows like Star Trek: TNG even had episodes that could be said to introduce LGBT issues, in their own way, including having a species that was symbiotic, starting out as inside a male host, then being moved to Riker, then to a female host, all while having/maintaining feelings for Dr. Crusher or the episode that basically was a plug against conversion therapy where the alien race was completely androgynous except for a very few who felt that they should be one gender or the other, something their society disapproved of, to the point of putting those who refused to conform to having no gender in therapy to see the error of their ways.
 
Last edited:
He is a politician. That is what they do, plan/play politics. Anyone who thinks any politician, Democrat, Republican, or other (with some rare exceptions, usually falling in the "other" category) make reasonable stands based on their personal convictions is naive at best, a complete dupe at worst. There are some that make a stand on personal convictions in a way that is completely irrational, and not going to be a good candidate for actually caring about the interests of all the people they represent, or even most of them, because most of them are of the idea that they were elected because every single person that voted for them agrees with absolutely everything they have said or done. Doing this then makes them an idiot or just crazy (some specific politicians come to mind for this one).

Change happens. The "left" saw the direction the wind was shifting when it came to gay rights. Heck, so did the right, hence DOMA. Even then, those my age supported same sex marriage in higher numbers than our parents, despite being in high school. Some did this because of peer influence (we had a pretty openly gay guy in my high school that was pretty respected, even in a western-NC high school (we were still having issues with people not approving of interracial relationships, which ironically enough the guy who was gay was mixed race, raised by his white grandparents)). Heck, it was the 1990s sitcoms that introduced many of those my age to the concept of not just gay marriage, but even different family types, especially for those raised in nuclear families (which actually wasn't me). The first same sex wedding on US TV was in 1991, on "Roc". We had three men raising three little girls on "Full House", even claiming in either the 2nd or 3rd episode to each be Stephanie's father. Both Roseanne and Friends had same sex weddings in the mid-90s. And Roseanne had at least two regular gay characters (and wasn't the sister bisexual?).

I never really utilized television to learn about these things (Im now 34). Yes, there were single sex relationships, single parent households, etc. But it wasn't formative to me. I believe the premise of Full House was a widowed father, and his friends/family who all happened to be male helping to raise his daughters. Ive met the actress that was Stephanie, btw. Her husband at the time was in my friends band.

I know things change, I dont see it as the govts role to force social change on anyone, however.
 
1.) i agree good thing i never made that claim, if you disagree simply qoute me saying otherwise you will fail . . .in fact there are quotes of me saying your exact phrase
2.) see #1 since your premise/strawman is based on a lie i never said the only thing wrong is your claim
3.) translation: facts proved your post wrong so now you are deflecting. Ill be sticking with facts over your proven wrong biased pinon, thanks

please let us know when you have ONE fact that supports your failed and proven wrong claim . . .one . . . . thank you
your post fails and facts wins aagin

???? If you agree with me, what the hell are you arguing with me about????

God. It's like being trapped in a room with the DP version of Charlie Sheen.
 
I never really utilized television to learn about these things (Im now 34). Yes, there were single sex relationships, single parent households, etc. But it wasn't formative to me. I believe the premise of Full House was a widowed father, and his friends/family who all happened to be male helping to raise his daughters. Ive met the actress that was Stephanie, btw. Her husband at the time was in my friends band.

I know things change, I dont see it as the govts role to force social change on anyone, however.

DADT was not forcing social change. It was recognizing that homosexuals can serve their country and should not be banned from serving their country just because they are attracted to and have relationships with people of the same sex. The problem with DADT is that it still forced homosexuals to keep their relationships and attractions secret (at least officially) in order to serve, something that heterosexuals never had to do when it came to the military (at least not most, only those breaking other, much more reasonable rules had to or they would get in trouble). They didn't have to lie about their attractions, but still might have had to lie, or lie by omission about their relationships or attractions.

And I'm the same age you are. While Full House was as described, I don't see people all up in arms about them raising three girls, as guys, together claiming "they need a mother" (which, although they did have a reoccurring adult female character eventually, they still did not get an actual mother).
 
DADT was not forcing social change. It was recognizing that homosexuals can serve their country and should not be banned from serving their country just because they are attracted to and have relationships with people of the same sex. The problem with DADT is that it still forced homosexuals to keep their relationships and attractions secret (at least officially) in order to serve, something that heterosexuals never had to do when it came to the military (at least not most, only those breaking other, much more reasonable rules had to or they would get in trouble). They didn't have to lie about their attractions, but still might have had to lie, or lie by omission about their relationships or attractions.

And I'm the same age you are. While Full House was as described, I don't see people all up in arms about them raising three girls, as guys, together claiming "they need a mother" (which, although they did have a reoccurring adult female character eventually, they still did not get an actual mother).

Yes, it kind of was. You yourself stated that homosexuals could be discriminated against (even if indirectly). This was a way to remove those barriers, via govt mandate. Govt often imposes social change via the military because the military has to comply.

A friend of mine served as a combat engineer in the early days of the Iraq war, he was sexually assaulted while he was sleeping in a trench, this guy is brilliant (now an engineer) and not hateful in any way, and he told me it had an enormously destructive effect on morale in his unit. Am I saying gays should not serve in the military? Not at all, Im saying there are unintended consequences to such coercion.

For the record, Im not against the premise of Full House in any way, and I think that the 3 guys pulled it off (in a tv fiction way), but I think humans have evolved with 2 opposite parents. If nothing else, its important for children to have imprinting from both sexes. Im not saying that 2 loving gay parents should not have children-Im saying its optimal to have two opposite sex parents, all other factors being equal.
 
Yes, it kind of was. You yourself stated that homosexuals could be discriminated against (even if indirectly). This was a way to remove those barriers, via govt mandate. Govt often imposes social change via the military because the military has to comply.

A friend of mine served as a combat engineer in the early days of the Iraq war, he was sexually assaulted while he was sleeping in a trench, this guy is brilliant (now an engineer) and not hateful in any way, and he told me it had an enormously destructive effect on morale in his unit. Am I saying gays should not serve in the military? Not at all, Im saying there are unintended consequences to such coercion.

For the record, Im not against the premise of Full House in any way, and I think that the 3 guys pulled it off (in a tv fiction way), but I think humans have evolved with 2 opposite parents. If nothing else, its important for children to have imprinting from both sexes. Im not saying that 2 loving gay parents should not have children-Im saying its optimal to have two opposite sex parents, all other factors being equal.

Because it was government mandate that set up those barriers to begin with. The very applications to join the military asked "Are you homosexual?". If you answered "yes", you were denied entry into the military. With DADT, the form became a page 13 that actually still required you to sort of lie if you had same sex attractions. It didn't ask if you were homosexual, but required you to initial and sign that you understood that having homosexual attractions in the military could get you kicked out if you acted on those attractions or openly admitted to such attractions on any official forms. I actually signed this upon my enlistment in the Navy, and have a copy of it.

Optimal, is and always will be a subjective term.

There have been cases (one major one I know of) where a group of males sexually assaulted their male LPO because they hated the guy. Everyone in the incident, the victim and the perpetrators, were straight, had girl friends/wives. Sexual assault is about power, not attraction, which is why we hear about sexual assaults happening so often to elderly people, because they offer an "easy" target to those types of people. There are no actual "unintended consequences" to allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Hell, your own story proves this since it would have been before the DADT repeal. It was because of a single sick person, not a whole sexual orientation of people, that your friend was sexually assaulted. Some of the most horrific male on male sexual assaults have been heterosexual male(s) on heterosexual male.
 
Because it was government mandate that set up those barriers to begin with. The very applications to join the military asked "Are you homosexual?". If you answered "yes", you were denied entry into the military. With DADT, the form became a page 13 that actually still required you to sort of lie if you had same sex attractions. It didn't ask if you were homosexual, but required you to initial and sign that you understood that having homosexual attractions in the military could get you kicked out if you acted on those attractions or openly admitted to such attractions on any official forms. I actually signed this upon my enlistment in the Navy, and have a copy of it.

Optimal, is and always will be a subjective term.

There have been cases (one major one I know of) where a group of males sexually assaulted their male LPO because they hated the guy. Everyone in the incident, the victim and the perpetrators, were straight, had girl friends/wives. Sexual assault is about power, not attraction, which is why we hear about sexual assaults happening so often to elderly people, because they offer an "easy" target to those types of people. There are no actual "unintended consequences" to allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Hell, your own story proves this since it would have been before the DADT repeal. It was because of a single sick person, not a whole sexual orientation of people, that your friend was sexually assaulted. Some of the most horrific male on male sexual assaults have been heterosexual male(s) on heterosexual male.

But the fact that a "solution" caused the unintended morale drop in a front line combat unit in the opening days of a war proves my point doesn't it?

You served in the navy (thanks for that) I have friends who did/do as well, and I hear about the drama and pregnancies occurring while at sea. In some cases its a significant threat to military readiness because now the military has to rotate people, often in the middle of a deployment.
 
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 :)

Yeah...it was just a short clip off you tube. I could probably find the whole thing and post it, but really who is going to sit and watch a 15 minute link. I thought the editing was a little annoying myself...be that as it may....it does bring home the issue and that is....Pence is either lying....or did a really poor job in this interview. I'm not sure which. I believe it is the former because there would be no need to change the law if it didn't do what the critics say that it does. And it would explain why he refused to answer the question....because he knew the answer....and knew it wasn't going to play out well for what he was trying to do.
 
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

The difference is....you don't see other religions trying to use the law as a shield to practice their bigotry. It is the radical Christian fundamentalists who are trying to politicize the law to allow their discrimination.

In answer to your questions:
1. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. I would say that I think religions are free to have their own beliefs and preach their own beliefs even if in opposition to the government. They are, however, obligated to abide by the laws. They can't use their religion to write their own rules.
2. No. Government should stay out of religion and religion should stay out of government. People should be able to practice any religion in their homes and in their churches and even in the public arena when it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
3. Criminalizing the views of the religious? I don't see anyone doing that. I guess I would only support that if the religion was involved in something like animal sacrifice or other illegal activities. I do support the right of the government to enforce anti-discrimination laws. A business owner should not be able to turn about blacks because he doesn't like black people or mexicans or gays or anyone else. They don't have to open a business. If they do....they have to abide by the laws of this land.
 
We had three men raising three little girls on "Full House", even claiming in either the 2nd or 3rd episode to each be Stephanie's father. .

WTF? I could not let this go. The "three men" raising "three little girls" were their widowed father, his dead wife's brother, and his childhood best friend. Not only did the childhood best friend never at ANY time claim to be father to any of those girls, including Stephanie - one of them WAS her father, and the other one would have had to impregnate his sister in order to be her father, so no, he never claimed it either. The show had nothing - zero - to do with sexuality at all - including incest, which you implied here. It was as pure and non-sexual as any show could be and still remain popular.
 
Its largely similar, with a few differences you disagree with. In any case its what the citizens of Indiana want.

it might be what the citizens want, but it might not.

our system isn't a direct democracy, so we can't concretely say the collective wants it.

but when it comes to rights, we shouldn't be letting a group vote decide anyway
 
The law didn't have time to come into effect. The American people wouldn't stand for it.

So I take it you don't have any violations, and I'm speaking of things that happened previously. None.
 
Back
Top Bottom