• 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

Exactly. If people want this particular 'freedom' back, then they can have it. And if it's that important to them, I dont see why they wouldnt post it.

I mean, if you dont really want to serve blacks or Muslims, for ex., then you should have that 'freedom' back but you do have to post it, otherwise how will such people know to avoid your business?



And honestly, why would you want someone to photograph your wedding or bake your cake if they objected to your union ANYWAY? Personally I'd be worried I'd get substandard service if I compelled them to do it against their conscience.
 
Last edited:
Conscientious Objectors were allowed to not carry a weapon and not fight. My BIL was one such in Vietnam. He went in when drafted as a C.O. and served as an unarmed medic for a front line infantry unit.

I can see how even that would be offensive to them, or against their beliefs tho....because they would still be supporting the war and the people who were fighting.

Which I believe is more the position of say, those bakers that refuse to back a wedding cake for gays....they are still supporting what they consider a sin.

(I do not agree of course, but I'm making the comparison)
 
And honestly, why would you want someone to photograph your wedding or bake your cake if they objected to your union ANYWAY? Personally I'd be worried I'd get substandard service if I compelled them to do it against their conscience.

Another interesting thing may come to light if this hypothetical was tried: the *right* to choose whom you want to serve, to have that freedom, would be available to business owners....but would they take advantage of it?

They would have the right to refuse service to groups they found offensive or that held beliefs that they were against. I do still believe there are seriously racist people in the US. And certainly those that would refuse to serve Muslims if they could. And obvoiusly, gays.

I wonder *how many would* actually apply for that 'discriminatory exceptions' business license and choose to not serve blacks, or women, or Jews, or Muslims? Or even gays, once they realized how big that 'market' is and how deep those pockets are?

If such discrimination were allowed, I wonder how many would actually take advantage of it?
 
Hi Gina. :) It's an interesting question. Do we believe people should be able to operate their business according to their own moral/ethical beliefs or does someone lay down those rights as soon as they start a business? I really don't know the right answer or if there even is one. There's a restaurant close by where I work that has Bible verses and sayings posted all over it. Should they be mandated to take that all down if someone says they're offended? The reality of life, I think, is that two very valid worthwhile rights can sometimes conflict and one must necessarily give way to the other and that's always going to cause tension.

Posting bible verses and discriminating against customers based on their race aren't the same thing.
 
The Christian bakery would be discriminating against the gay couple. The gay couple would be not be discriminating but they are, yes, making a statement.

I have an issue with scenarios like this. The argument has been made over and over, let business owners discriminate and if the marketplace of consumers doesn't like it, that business will suffer. The marketplace will speak and all will be righted.

So, here we have businesses who are doing just that, and there is an outcry when the marketplace speaks.

It soul crushing to hear my LGBT and non-white family, friends and acquaintances tell me of the bigotry they are routinely confronted with, so I will not condemn those who choose to confront it. Despite the quoted scenario.

So have at me.

I would disagree that the marketplace is speaking. The courts are doing the speaking and not giving the marketplace a chance.
 
Very true, I discriminate against people who discriminate.

Don't forget your extreme often cited just hate for those you disagree with politically. That's what I was referring to. Not at all surprised you missed it though. Lol.
 
Hi Gina. :) It's an interesting question. Do we believe people should be able to operate their business according to their own moral/ethical beliefs or does someone lay down those rights as soon as they start a business? I really don't know the right answer or if there even is one. There's a restaurant close by where I work that has Bible verses and sayings posted all over it. Should they be mandated to take that all down if someone says they're offended? The reality of life, I think, is that two very valid worthwhile rights can sometimes conflict and one must necessarily give way to the other and that's always going to cause tension.

I don't see how they could be forced to take down their Bible verses. That is free speech.

If they refuse to serve someone because they are LGBT or something like it, then that is a problem and yeah, that's where there is tension. I honestly don't see that running a restaurant (a bakery or photography studio) is akin to practicing one's religion or limiting their ability practice it. That's where I come down on this issue.
 
Conscientious Objectors were allowed to not carry a weapon and not fight. My BIL was one such in Vietnam. He went in when drafted as a C.O. and served as an unarmed medic for a front line infantry unit.


We do have a history of trying to take into consideration the honest objections-of-conscience held by citizens, whether religious or otherwise. Some reasonable compromise is not unjust.


If a doctor declines to perform an abortion, he can refer the patient to another physician. If a wedding photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding (or a Klan wedding, or a skinhead wedding, or a biker wedding, or a Black Panther wedding), let him refer the prospective customer to another service provider and no harm is done.

Here's a reasonable compromise:

We only step in to prevent businesses from rejecting customers based on personal characteristics they can't control and only then when that characteristic has historically been used to the detriment of those people.
 
I would disagree that the marketplace is speaking. The courts are doing the speaking and not giving the marketplace a chance.

People, businesses, and other states spoke up and said they would avoid doing business with Indiana. That is 'the marketplace speaking.'
 
I would disagree that the marketplace is speaking. The courts are doing the speaking and not giving the marketplace a chance.
The market is speaking very loudly in Indiana.
 
Posting bible verses and discriminating against customers based on their race aren't the same thing.

You say that now, but wait until someone talks about how they don't feel welcomed there based on the Bible verses and that is de facto discrimination. My suspicion is that you would not exactly be up front and out there advocating for the business's right to post them.
 
Only liberals assume freedom = discrimination. What does that tell you?

It tells me you have liberals wrong. Liberals are not saying that.
 
Exactly. If people want this particular 'freedom' back, then they can have it. And if it's that important to them, I dont see why they wouldnt post it.

I mean, if you dont really want to serve blacks or Muslims, for ex., then you should have that 'freedom' back but you do have to post it, otherwise how will such people know to avoid your business?

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
Exactly. If people want this particular 'freedom' back, then they can have it. And if it's that important to them, I dont see why they wouldnt post it.

I mean, if you dont really want to serve blacks or Muslims, for ex., then you should have that 'freedom' back but you do have to post it, otherwise how will such people know to avoid your business?

Why are people obligated to tell people where to shop? It's not their concern if someone isn't informed on where they will get service.
 
Here's a reasonable compromise:

We only step in to prevent businesses from rejecting customers based on personal characteristics they can't control and only then when that characteristic has historically been used to the detriment of those people.

Interesting, so refusing to serve Muslims would be acceptable then?
 
You say that now, but wait until someone talks about how they don't feel welcomed there based on the Bible verses and that is de facto discrimination. My suspicion is that you would not exactly be up front and out there advocating for the business's right to post them.

Sorry if I dont have full context, but while I completely support a non-govt run business posting religious verses, I dont see how you can dismiss the right of people not to patronize the business based on their feelings re: the verses. Or even criticize them for it.
 
The market is speaking very loudly in Indiana.

These marketplace arguments undermine your argument. Just sayin.
 
Another interesting thing may come to light if this hypothetical was tried: the *right* to choose whom you want to serve, to have that freedom, would be available to business owners....but would they take advantage of it?

They would have the right to refuse service to groups they found offensive or that held beliefs that they were against. I do still believe there are seriously racist people in the US. And certainly those that would refuse to serve Muslims if they could. And obvoiusly, gays.

I wonder *how many would* actually apply for that 'discriminatory exceptions' business license and choose to not serve blacks, or women, or Jews, or Muslims? Or even gays, once they realized how big that 'market' is and how deep those pockets are?

If such discrimination were allowed, I wonder how many would actually take advantage of it?



Frankly I'd think the public backlash would drive them to change their policy in a majority of cases, especially if it were something as egregious as refusing service to a race or gender.
 
There is nothing like shooting first and asking questions later...
If nothing else this proves the stupidity of the Indiana legislators and governor who managed to pass a law that need to be revised so soon.

I think the story about how shocked Gov. Pence is that, "A lot of everyday people have gay friends, and they’re not afraid to call and/or e-mail you to tell you that,” Pence said. “To be honest, I’m still trying to process it all", says it all.

They were clueless. With the march towards nation-wide legal SSM, it should have been easy to keep from making such a horrible miscalculation.
 
Why are people obligated to tell people where to shop? It's not their concern if someone isn't informed on where they will get service.

THey arent, that's not what was written.

It was about signage telling people where they could not bring their business (shop would be one example).

How would people know they werent welcome there if there was no sign displayed informing them?
 
Liberals before this law: If business was allowed to discriminate people would starve and be homeless!

Liberals after this law: The marketplace is speaking up about how they disapprove of discrimination.

Libertarians before this law: The marketplace would handle discrimination issues.
Libertarians after this law: The marketplace would handle discrimination issues.

Lol, I guess libertarians were right, again.
 
Frankly I'd think the public backlash would drive them to change their policy in a majority of cases, especially if it were something as egregious as refusing service to a race or gender.

I know, I think so too. But...should they have the right to do so, just as the public has the right to act as they see fit?

Like I said, it's a cool hypothetical to explore :)
 
I'll say it again, this was all avoidable.
It was indeed avoidable. Illinois, Texas, and Missouri are all RFRA examples of how to avoid it.

Indiana legislators chose differently and now the economic/reputation price is becoming too steep to ignore reality and remedy.
 
I would disagree that the marketplace is speaking. The courts are doing the speaking and not giving the marketplace a chance.

I will disagree with you on that. It is due to the marketplace, which partially consists of the states of Connecticut and Washington and the other entities refusing to do business in Indiana, that caused this change of heart to come about. There is no court involved at this point in time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom