• 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

Shocking. Let's just save time here and acknowledge that there is zero scenario where you'd actually side with a Christian business owner over a gay person regardless of the presented facts.

Anyway, I knew this thread would attract you like a moth to a flame so you can make speeches about how awesome and enlightened you are and that it would also be my cur to bow out of it. Have fun "likes" whoring.

I wonder how many people here support the government only protecting rights for the buyer, not the seller, but also support us negotiating with a country that throws people off roofs and throws them in jail because they are gay?
 
Why do we need government involved for that? Let businesses open and serve or not serve who they please, and let the local community decide to support them or not. No need for Big Brother to step in.

Why wouldnt posting it be required? Otherwise how would people know that they cannot do business there?

Businesses do it all the time now anyway. (Shoes, shirts, skateboards, smoking, guns, etc) Why? So they dont have to waste time and effort dealing with people or issues they dont want to.

If you want that freedom to not associate, then the sign allows you to do exactly that. Signs allow one to avoid 'association.'
 
You have the freedom to discriminate, you just can't run a discriminatory business. Besides which, there is no religious justification for denying service to gays. Stop blowing the religious freedom horn and just own the fact that you hate people that look / act differently than you.

No. It is not discrimination to choose not to participate in something you consider against your religion, regardless if someone is offering money to you or not. We do not give up our rights just because we choose to participate in commerce.
 
It tells me you have liberals wrong. Liberals are not saying that.


Yes they are. The bill protects freedom of religion which liberals are saying will lead to discrimination.
 
Yes they are. The bill protects freedom of religion which liberals are saying will lead to discrimination.

He said it better than I can:

You have the freedom to discriminate, you just can't run a discriminatory business. Besides which, there is no religious justification for denying service to gays.
 
He said it better than I can:

That is why I replied with: "No. It is not discrimination to choose not to participate in something you consider against your religion, regardless if someone is offering money to you or not. We do not give up our rights just because we choose to participate in commerce."

If you can find anything in the Constitution that allows you to passively give up your rights by pursuing a means than I'd love to see it.
 
No. It is not discrimination to choose not to participate in something you consider against your religion
Indeed, that is why one can put up signs that they do not wish to be affiliated with X, or form clubs or unions where they can only associate with like minded bigots.
 
That is why I replied with: "No. It is not discrimination to choose not to participate in something you consider against your religion, regardless if someone is offering money to you or not. We do not give up our rights just because we choose to participate in commerce."

If you can find anything in the Constitution that allows you to passively give up your rights by pursuing a means than I'd love to see it.

Religious rights are tied to the practice of that religion. The government may not interfere in that. Operating a business is not akin to practicing a religion.
 
Indeed, that is why one can put up signs that they do not wish to be affiliated with X, or form clubs or unions where they can only associate with like minded bigots.

It is not bigotry.

Let's put it this way. What if an actress, who is unmarried and maintained her virginity because of religious beliefs, is requested by an adult film company to work as an actress in scenes that will bring her virginity to an end? Can she not claim religious freedom? Can she not refuse work?

Really, if we extended this out, how can any contract worker or company refuse any offer of employment if they have the threat of discrimination hanging over them?
 
Religious rights are tied to the practice of that religion. The government may not interfere in that. Operating a business is not akin to practicing a religion.

Religion is not just in church. Religion is an all day, every day kind of thing. The practice of religion does not end, not ever.
 
I've got a question about all this.

Let's say that there are 10 bakeries in the local area. Nine of the bakeries are pretty generic but one specializes in Christian themed goods. They primarily make cakes, cookies and cupcakes decorated with angels, crosses and other Christian themed adornment. They don't have a sign on their door or anything that says "Christians Only" but it's pretty obvious what their business model is. Now a gay couple decides to get married. They have been very active in the "gay rights" movement and want to make a statement so they intentionally choose this particular baker to provide a cake for their wedding because they are sure that there will be resistance. Sure enough, the Christian baker turns the job down based on their religious convictions.

Now here's the question, in this scenario who is discriminating against whom?

Easy. The baker who decided to open their shop for business. They don't get to write their own rules just because they own a business. Sorry. They still have to comply with the law.
 
Last edited:
Easy. The baker who decided to open their shop for business. The don't get to write their own rules just because they own a business. Sorry. They still have to comply with the law.

What if the law said that you must put a Rush Limbaugh for President poster on your wall?
 
Religious rights are tied to the practice of that religion. The government may not interfere in that. Operating a business is not akin to practicing a religion.

You are right. It is not operating the business that is a problem. It is the state forcing the conciencious objector to act against her concience that is.
 
There is no such law. Silly attempt at an analogy. Try something better.

Actually, it isn't. TV and Radio stations must air political advertisements. So, if you had a business and you wanted to put up a Hillary for President poster, it wouldn't be far fetched for the government to say, you must be fair and post an opponents poster to. After all, you are a business and you gave up your rights. I think, you only support this because you aren't affected. If it went the other way, you'd be crying foul.
 
How many cases should there have to be before action takes place? Because it seems just a few people encounter discrimination, we should just ignore it? It must be widespread first? So those folks should just keep quiet and suck it up?

That's a good question and I'm not sure that I have a good answer for you. My personal opinion is that a business owner should be allowed to operate pretty much as he or she sees fit as long as their actions don't injure their customers. The question then becomes one of how "injury" is defined. I have a hard time finding that there was any legal injury in refusing retail service to an individual due to a disagreement regarding ideology.
 
You are right. It is not operating the business that is a problem. It is the state forcing the conciencious objector to act against her concience that is.

There's no force. If you dont like the laws pertaining to that state's business licenses, no one forces you to get one. You can find another state, jurisdiction, area in which to open your business.
 
That is probably why he started with "what if".

Even so...its a poor analogy. If you want me to respond, at least present an analogy that is somehow related to the topic, not something completely off the wall that has nothing in common with the topic at hand.
 
Easy. The baker who decided to open their shop for business. They don't get to write their own rules just because they own a business. Sorry. They still have to comply with the law.

Or in another way, if you have core religious values that would prevent you from serving everyone, you aren't allowed to open a business. Case in point, Muslim bakers must grant my request for a Happy Gay Marriage cake complete with Muhammad picture.
 
There's no force. If you dont like the laws pertaining to that state's business licenses, no one forces you to get one. You can find another state, jurisdiction, area in which to open your business.

Or you can elect officials that will protect your rights.
 
I'm jaded. I think that was the intention of the bill and those who have voiced support of "religious freedom" to discriminate saw it that way too.

There is some skepticism in the media whether "the fix" will actually include LGBT persons. I hope it will be fixed like it should. I've read why the 1993 federal law was passed and it seemed a good reason related to religious practices of employees. The Indiana law is not the same as the federal one.

I agree i feel the same. the government one im ok with for the most part, im not aware of any cases where illegal discrimination was made legal by it and it also was directed at protecting EMPLOYEES like you said. and is not the same.

It will be very interesting to see what "the fix" is
it should be to remove it for businesses and to add the exemption/verbiage that this doesnt trump civil rights or any protections already in place.
 
Easy. The baker who decided to open their shop for business. They don't get to write their own rules just because they own a business. Sorry. They still have to comply with the law.

It was the customers choice to engage the baker and their intent to cause discord so I would TOTALLY disagree with that assessment.
 
Back
Top Bottom