• 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!

Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

1750Texan said:
Religion is a protected class.

Indiana's RFRA protects a class.
Click to expand...
Then why'd Bill Clinton sign it into law, along with the support of some of the very liberals that are now screaming like stuck pigs?
 
j-mac said:
I suspect the free market would be harsh against that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

But they would have the right that some here feel they are being denied.

So do you believe that $$ would overcome their "principles?"

I'm not being contentious....I'm just asking.
 
Lursa said:
Does this refresh your memory? You never supported the bold, black.
Click to expand...

1. As recently as 1964 Nelson Rockefeller was considered disqualified from Presidential consideration because of his divorce and remarriage.
2. The history of Britain was turned in a new direction by the question of divorce & remarriage.
3. Ask Hester Prynne about adultery.
4. For thousands of years heterosexual marriage was the social norm, while homosexual relationships were "the love that dare not speak its name."
5. Adultery remains a court martial offense in the US military to this day, and it is prosecuted.

Etc., etc.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. As recently as 1964 Nelson Rockefeller was considered disqualified from Presidential consideration because of his divorce and remarriage.
2. The history of Britain was turned in a new direction by the question of divorce & remarriage.
3. Ask Hester Prynne about adultery.
4. For thousands of years heterosexual marriage was the social norm, while homosexual relationships were "the love that dare not speak its name."
5. Adultery remains a court martial offense in the US military to this day, and it is prosecuted.

Etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I asked about religious campaigns preventing certain sinners from marrying. (successful or not). The Catholic Church is the only one I'm aware of
and you didnt really answer.
 
Lursa said:
I asked about religious campaigns preventing certain sinners from marrying. (successful or not). The Catholic Church is the only one I'm aware of
and you didnt really answer.
Click to expand...

There was no "campaign" because the entire society was a campaign. There was no "campaign" against marriage because the concept would have been dismissed as ridiculous.
 
Jack Hays said:
There was no "campaign" because the entire society was a campaign. There was no "campaign" against marriage because the concept would have been dismissed as ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Well then ya probably shouldnt have been so glib and cavalier with this statement then, huh?

Jack Hays said:
The campaigns of which you are apparently unaware were quite powerful and lasted centuries.
Click to expand...

And then at least supported it or apologized after.
 
Lursa said:
Well then ya probably shouldnt have been so glib and cavalier with this statement then, huh?



And then at least supported it or apologized after.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it is your use of the word "campaign" that is ludicrous. I merely highlighted your silliness and ahistorical viewpoint.
 
Gina said:
A short while ago Gov. Mike Pence held a press conference to say that he asking for legislation by the end of the week to clarify the RFRA law he signed last week. Key in his statement:


Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.
Click to expand...

“VICTORY AT THE STATEHOUSE!” proclaimed a press release from Advance America, a conservative group whose leader, Eric Miller, was invited to join Pence at a private signing ceremony at the statehouse. “Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!”

This week, lawmakers tweaked the law, adding language to “clarify” that it cannot be used by businesses, landlords and others to turn away gay customers. After an outcry by major companies, sports organizations and entertainers, as well as gay activists, lawmakers in Arkansas, Georgia and North Carolina amended similar measures or abandoned them completely.
Click to expand...
Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.[/QUOTE]
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, it is your use of the word "campaign" that is ludicrous. I merely highlighted your silliness and ahistorical viewpoint.
Click to expand...

No, it was relevant and accurate...you are the one that attempted to misuse it when you couldnt actually demonstrate any such efforts on the part of religions in the past.

You proved my point tho when you couldnt.
 
Lursa said:
No, it was relevant and accurate...you are the one that attempted to misuse it when you couldnt actually demonstrate any such efforts on the part of religions in the past.

You proved my point tho when you couldnt.
Click to expand...

I limited my examples to Christian cases. Their actions were constant and universal. You must inhabit a different universe.
 
Analysis: Critics want it both ways

". . . . If we are unwilling to impose an absolute rule of service regardless of content, then we need to be honest about our reservations and look more closely at how to allow people to opt out of certain expressive services. If people can decline offensive services, we need to focus our attention on defining those services that are inherently expressive and those that are not. We need to discuss not the central issue of discrimination but those cases on the margins that deal with legitimate speech. As Benjamin Franklin noted, “a great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges.”
 
original_zpszf6jilrf.jpg
 
Paperview said:
Only if you think an open to the public business in the business of baking cakes treating people equally is infringing on religious conscious.
Click to expand...

Madison wrote to protect religious conscience from state action.
 
Noteworthy that Christians are attacked and ridiculed in Indiana during the same week when 150+ Christians are massacred in Kenya.
 
JANFU said:
Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.
Click to expand...


The quote function messed up your reply. Could you please clarify?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom