• 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

You needn't ask what I am saying -
It's impossible to 'see it for what it is' if some see it as evil, because the Bill is not what some of those individuals say it is. I've read it. Have you? Have you read any detailed extended analysis? Thought not.

These bills are quite different from the Fed bill, and the Illinois law some people have pointed to.

And yes I have read it and read about it. And many analysis about it too. Actually I've commented and posted links a few times in this thread. These bills were vague, broad and nothing more than revenge because the religious right has lost the gay marriage battle.

So I'm done commenting on it. That's my opinion on it, and the opinion of many more people who have much greater knowledge about it than you do..
 
No he wasn't. He shuffled around the question worse than I've ever seen anyone dance around a question. He could have easily said what you just said.

Indeed. I don't think anyone is going to argue that Pence didn't fumble the response to this.

Instead he kept changing the subject and refusing to even address the issue.

No, he was attempting to address what the bill was actually about, not what George was trying to push it into.

If Geroge wanted a "soundbite", Pence is such an absolute idiot....he has given the Democrats more than enough in the last week. So what is he? An idiot or a liar? He's clearly one or the other.

:shrug: he handled it badly. I don't think that makes him an idiot any more than fumbling the email thing makes Hillary an idiot.
 
like we "got over" gay marriage bans? We will never stop fighting oppression. We've been doing it for 50+ years and more organized and united, with far more support, than ever

Isn't that special! :) Homosexuals are so special. Especially the ones that are just so damned proud that they're not breeders that they make sure everyone knows that it's their defining characteristic. It's just.. well... special. :) Superduper extra special. Like my brother tries to tell me all the time. Homosexuals like him have been responsible for all the great things in society because they don't have to be bothered with breeding expectations like those boring and tedious cisgender (lol) types.
 
True, but some cities and counties do include sexual orientation in their local ordinances. This may push more cities to add protections on the local level.
Hopefully so.

The situation in Arkansas is a bit different. In February 2015 both houses passed SB-202. It was introduced/passed by the same Republican legislators who introduced/passed the Arkansas RFRA.

Under the guise of improving intrastate commerce, this law prohibits a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state from adopting or enforcing an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.

In other words, no government entity in Arkansas can enact non-discrimination laws or ordinances except the bigots in Little Rock.
 
These bills are quite different from the Fed bill, and the Illinois law some people have pointed to.
Agreed, "quite different" in specific ways, that I tirelessly point out. But did the differences in the bill, compared to other RFRA laws, provide protection for discrimination. No.

Look you can't scream about a law that, unlike other similar laws, steals peoples rights because its different; not when "the difference" is that law is written in a different font.

You can't show that those differences SUPPORTED this false claim. Hence the "fix" was to ACTUALLY make the Indiana law materially different than the rest.

And yes I have read it and read about it. And many analysis about it too. Actually I've commented and posted links a few times in this thread. These bills were vague, broad and nothing more than revenge because the religious right has lost the gay marriage battle.
The only thing vague and broad are your generalized characterizations. Its kind of daffy to whine it is "vague" when the differences that vex you so remove ambiguity about who and under what circumstances a suit can use this defense.

It was only "broad" in its application to more kinds of entities and cases, not in its "protection" of discrimination.

So I'm done commenting on it. That's my opinion on it, and the opinion of many more people who have much greater knowledge about it than you do..
So what. You are wrong. And that is not just my opinion, its a fact.

Read my links, rather than run.
 
1 tweet directed at one pizzeria. ONE. Has turned into 'the left is trying to burn down businesses.......'?

This is why people who sit there all day listening to 1 point of view like these conservative pundits and AM radio entertainers like Limbaugh usually are less informed. People got to get their news from more then 1 source.

Jeez.

It's almost as comical as this law meaning that black families won't be able to buy food on their family vacations in Indiana, and gay people being locked away out of public site, and nobody but middle aged white Christian men being able to get gas at all of the gas stations in Indiana, and doctors refusing to treat gay men who need medical care.
 
I understand your point, as I have what others have previously said, with my own interpretation of their objections. That is, that I clearly understand that gays are not protected necessarily. I don't understand why they actually have to be. Are you saying that Christians will not accomodate gay business as a rule because of this law? I don't think that's the case at all.

Yes, I think some (small) businesses owners might use a religious freedom law such as Indiana's to refuse to sell a product or provide a service to a customer strictly because said customer is gay. And they'll hide behind their religious convictions to do so. They won't care that the gay or lesbian customer considers himself to be of the same religious faith. That won't matter to them as a business owner. What will matter is whether or not his business interest - NOT his religious beliefs - are jeopardized.

It's really the same thing as segregationist of the old south. Even if the business owner didn't believe in segregationist practices, he still would refuse to serve a Black customer out of fear of reprisal. If word got out that a White proprietor sold goods to a Black customer, his business could suffer as a result. I can image similar fears playing out here with these so-called "religious freedom" laws. The public claim may be that it provides more leeway for business owners to decide for themselves who their customers will be, but the truth of the matter is such laws provide legal cover for business owners in the event they are sued as a result of their own bias and bigotry.
 
It's almost as comical as this law meaning that black families won't be able to buy food on their family vacations in Indiana, and gay people being locked away out of public site, and nobody but middle aged white Christian men being able to get gas at all of the gas stations in Indiana, and doctors refusing to treat gay men who need medical care.

Actually I was toying with the idea of relocating to Indiana for a short period, opening a business front, and calling the local press and telling them that I would not provide some kind of personal service to gays (e.g. massage, piano lessons, ethics training, etc.). Then see how many death threats and/or threats of physical violence would be directed against me or my business. Hell, they would at least key my car (which, of course, has to be a rental with lots of insurance).

When a national intolerant movement gets to the point that single person can send them into frothing and rabid rage - well, there is some perverse entertainment value.
 
So what. You are wrong. And that is not just my opinion, its a fact.

Everyone is wrong but you. You are the Sheldon Cooper of DP. You're smarter than all of us, combined.

I can tell from your language and tone you are looking at this issue with a very partisan politics slant. Some other people who analysis I've read are not. They say you're wrong. I'll go with them.

I'm done here.
 
Actually I was toying with the idea of relocating to Indiana for a short period, opening a business front, and calling the local press and telling them that I would not provide some kind of personal service to gays (e.g. massage, piano lessons, ethics training, etc.). Then see how many death threats and physical violence would be directed against me or my business.

When a national intolerant movement gets to the point that single person can send them into frothing and rabid rage - well, there is some perverse entertainment value.

Yep.

I can tell from your language and tone you are looking at this issue with a very partisan politics slant.

Thanks for proving my point.

Now I'm really done.
 
Actually I was toying with the idea of relocating to Indiana for a short period, opening a business front, and calling the local press and telling them that I would not provide some kind of personal service to gays (e.g. massage, piano lessons, ethics training, etc.). Then see how many death threats and/or threats of physical violence would be directed against me or my business. Hell, they would at least key my car (which, of course, has to be a rental with lots of insurance).

When a national intolerant movement gets to the point that single person can send them into frothing and rabid rage - well, there is some perverse entertainment value.

And you too can start a 'Fund Me' page, and collect the rewards!
 
Everyone is wrong but you. You are the Sheldon Cooper of DP. You're smarter than all of us, combined.

I can tell from your language and tone you are looking at this issue with a very partisan politics slant. Some other people who analysis I've read are not. They say you're wrong. I'll go with them.

I'm done here.

Rest assured, I'm not the smartest person on this website. I'm not even the smartest person in this thread. But I am the smartest person in this exchange.;)
 
Last edited:
Not if they are not asking if the people had been divorced or if they use birth control or if they have been involved in other longterm sinful behavior, that they continue to be involved in. Catholics are supposed to ask the Church for an annulment of their marriage after a divorce in order to get remarried. But if someone isn't Catholic, they aren't likely to ask for such an annulment from their own church, so why would the Catholic baker cater a "2nd wedding" for someone who hasn't received a proper annulment of their previous one? That is adultery in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

They very well may wish to decline under that scenario, that would be up to the individual business owner to reconcile with God. In any case the court may very well ask that question to find if the excuse is a pretext for discrimination or a sincerely held belief. The onus must, however, remain on the state to show a compelling interest for their ruling and not always come down on the side of the loudest or most politically powerful group.
 
You had a good post going until you got to the last line. Poor analogy that shows that you guys just don't get it. The proper analogy would be going to a Kosher deli and the butcher refusing to sell you certain products in the store because he only sells them to white people or to jews.
Providing flower or a cake is not "participating in a wedding".

Actually my analogy was correct. In the cases of the florist and baker customers were not showing up at the store and buying goods off the shelf. They were asking for a custom service to be provided for a ceremony. If the provider feels like the creative input is a participation, or if his work in any way contributes to the success of the event, he has participated.
 
Actually my analogy was correct. In the cases of the florist and baker customers were not showing up at the store and buying goods off the shelf. They were asking for a custom service to be provided for a ceremony. If the provider feels like the creative input is a participation, or if his work in any way contributes to the success of the event, he has participated.

No your analogy was poor. In your analogy, the customer was asking the Kosher butcher to provide a service that he didn't provide to anyone. In the case of the florist....the florist refused to provide flower to the gay couple that he/she offered to the public at large.
 
It's almost as comical as this law meaning that black families won't be able to buy food on their family vacations in Indiana, and gay people being locked away out of public site, and nobody but middle aged white Christian men being able to get gas at all of the gas stations in Indiana, and doctors refusing to treat gay men who need medical care.

Or as funny as death panels because of Obamacare. Or 1,000's of American dying from Ebola because the Mexicans will be carrying Ebola across the border. And gay marriage will lead to people marrying their goats.

It goes both ways which was why I said everyone should use more than 1 source for news.
 
Or as funny as death panels because of Obamacare. Or 1,000's of American dying from Ebola because the Mexicans will be carrying Ebola across the border. And gay marriage will lead to people marrying their goats.

It goes both ways which was why I said everyone should use more than 1 source for news.

I agree. That's why partisans make my skin crawl. They dial up the hyperbole and toss out ridiculous hypothetical situations (the most hysterical the better! the sky is falling!) and off they go. We can spend hundreds of pages just passing examples that happen on this very board (which are where my examples came from, BTW). But I don't attribute it to single news sources. I attribute it to blatant partisanship. You can get your news from 10 sources and still be a raging partisan.
 
1 tweet directed at one pizzeria. ONE. Has turned into 'the left is trying to burn down businesses.......'?

This is why people who sit there all day listening to 1 point of view like these conservative pundits and AM radio entertainers like Limbaugh usually are less informed. People got to get their news from more then 1 source.

Jeez.

One Tweet? That's it? Thats the basis of trying to destroy one pizzeria? (Avoid the blue pill, it keeps you in the Matrix, in the world of illusion).

Ughhhhh well, then there is reality:

Huffington Post headline screams:

Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First
Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings


Memories Pizza is a nine-year-old shop in downtown Walkerton, Indiana, just a few blocks from John Glenn High School. It’s owned by an openly-Christian couple, the O’Connors, who decorate their shop with mementos of their faith in Christ. So how does a small business in a small town wind up making headlines around the world as the new avatar of Christian bigotry?

...Some cursory internet forensics shows how it happened…or rather, how it was made to happen.

ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

...“no story.” Nothing happened. Nothing was about to happen. In other words, Memories Pizza didn’t blast out a news release. They didn’t contact the media, nor make a stink on Twitter or Facebook. They didn’t even post a sign in the window rejecting gay-wedding catering jobs. They merely answered questions from a novice reporter who strolled into their restaurant one day – who was sent on a mission by an irresponsible news organization....

Not only did ABC-57 News create that story ex nihilo (out of nothing), but the next day, the station’s Rosie Woods reported on the social-media backlash against the Christian pizza shop owners.

“Our Facebook page has been blowing up with comments after we aired that story last night,” said Woods.

You see, not only did ABC-57 manufacture the story with an ambush interview, it then doubled-down by making the reaction to the story into another story to give the sense of momentum, as if it were growing at its own impetus. Yet, everything about it is a fabrication.

...Back in the ABC-57 studio, Rosie Woods read three negative social media comments attacking the pizza shop owners, and then said, “And that’s just one side of this debate that’s heating up as more people and business owners speak up about the law.”...The unnamed ABC-57 editor then sends another reporter door-to-door on Walkerton’s rather depressed-looking main drag, trying to get reactions from other business people about the pizza shop owners. And the story inexorably snowballs onward...

All of the blog traffic and social media activity led to about 36,000 Facebook shares at ABC57.com on the original Alyssa Marino story less than 24 hours after it aired.

Meanwhile, over at Yelp.com, more than a thousand “reviews” of Memories Pizza rapidly accumulated, quickly overwhelming the positive comments from actual customers who like the pizza, the hospitality and the small-town charm. Folks who never heard of Walkerton attacked Crystal O’Connor’s business, her morality and her Lord. Many of the remarks included racially charged descriptions of genitalia and sex acts. “Reviewers” also posted pictures of naked men, of Adolf Hitler shouting “Ich habe ein pizza” (I have a pizza), and of Jesus gesturing with his middle finger. Over on Facebook, the restaurant’s 5-star average rating rapidly plunged to one star, as non-customers slammed away at Crystal’s little business.


...The Left doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as they get what they want. They’re willing — no, they’re eager — to sacrifice a small-town business, and it’s owners.

Lest you think I’m being too dramatic. Late Wednesday, word comes that Jess Dooley, a female coach at Concord High School 45 minutes away in Elkhart, has been suspended after tweeting:

Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?

Read more: Story that Memories Pizza Vowed to 'Reject Gay Weddings' Was Fabricated Out of Nothing | PJ Tatler

Ya all there was to the bullying and fear was "one little tweet".

LOL...
 
Who is to be the judge then as to which persons are appropriately "prepared to actually be free"?

Now I think you aren't a fascist but you should realise that statements such as these of yours were certainly used in Europe a 'few' years ago as justification for what we see today as atrocities.
Our liberal friends are more than happy to divide up who should be free and who should not
 
Yes, I think some (small) businesses owners might use a religious freedom law such as Indiana's to refuse to sell a product or provide a service to a customer strictly because said customer is gay. And they'll hide behind their religious convictions to do so. They won't care that the gay or lesbian customer considers himself to be of the same religious faith. That won't matter to them as a business owner. What will matter is whether or not his business interest - NOT his religious beliefs - are jeopardized.

There will always be a small minority who hide behind whatever to conceal their true intentions - it's not limited to religious belief. It's includes the entire panoply of social activity, and there is a vocal minority of gays who fill that bill as well.

It's really the same thing as segregationist of the old south. Even if the business owner didn't believe in segregationist practices, he still would refuse to serve a Black customer out of fear of reprisal. If word got out that a White proprietor sold goods to a Black customer, his business could suffer as a result. I can image similar fears playing out here with these so-called "religious freedom" laws. The public claim may be that it provides more leeway for business owners to decide for themselves who their customers will be, but the truth of the matter is such laws provide legal cover for business owners in the event they are sued as a result of their own bias and bigotry.

That could happen, but since we're talking about imagination and intent, I hope you realize that was not the intent of the legislation, in spite of hyperbole and much panting over certain legislators who participated in the event. The vast majority of Americans, both religious and not, don't give a damn about a person's sexual orientation. I don't, but I am starting to get tired of hearing about it ad nauseam.

The intent of these laws is that religious convictions can be taken into consideration - the laws don't in any way say that religious convictions must be taken into consideration, and even at that they do not necessarily provide the shield some are referring to. Discrimination is discrimination, and while there might be what would be considered mitigating circumstances, there is no requirement that they be honored - just considered.
 
Actually I was toying with the idea of relocating to Indiana for a short period, opening a business front, and calling the local press and telling them that I would not provide some kind of personal service to gays (e.g. massage, piano lessons, ethics training, etc.). Then see how many death threats and/or threats of physical violence would be directed against me or my business. Hell, they would at least key my car (which, of course, has to be a rental with lots of insurance).

When a national intolerant movement gets to the point that single person can send them into frothing and rabid rage - well, there is some perverse entertainment value.



Go to Indiana and open a business then phone the local media and announce you will not serve the Pollocks.

See what happens
 
Actually I was toying with the idea of relocating to Indiana for a short period, opening a business front, and calling the local press and telling them that I would not provide some kind of personal service to gays (e.g. massage, piano lessons, ethics training, etc.). Then see how many death threats and/or threats of physical violence would be directed against me or my business. Hell, they would at least key my car (which, of course, has to be a rental with lots of insurance).

When a national intolerant movement gets to the point that single person can send them into frothing and rabid rage - well, there is some perverse entertainment value.

It looks like potted meat is back on the media menu. They were almost covering significant events there for a bit, but why bother with that when you can just manufacture your own little social hysteria. As a bonus, no reading is required. Just ask a loaded question, and there ya have it. It's like adding water to a freeze dried meal. No muss, no fuss, and no work.
 
Back
Top Bottom