• 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

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.

TV and Radio have to air political advertisements because they are part of the media/airwaves - public access issues. The same laws do not apply to private businesses for obvious reasons. Its not even close to being related. Come up with a better analogy...this one is just silly.
 
It was the customers choice to engage the baker and their intent to cause discord so I would TOTALLY disagree with that assessment.

Well....you would be wrong. Sorry. It may have been the intent of the customer to cause discord...but THAT isn't discrimination.
 
Or you can elect officials that will protect your rights.


Maybe Indiana did....and yet....he overturned it. (Or changed it)

Seems like the majority is speaking in this case and his 'influences' and positions have changed. That often happens when the realities of a position are actually....realized.
 
Last edited:
Gee, wouldn't it be nice if every jurisdiction passed a law that said if you want to open a business that sells to the public you must sell to each and every person who enters your business provided they are polite, decent, exhibit proper hygiene, are not disruptive, and have a means of paying for the goods and/or services they wish to purchase. Otherwise, consider another profession or line of work.
 
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.

No. You are missing the point (either purposefully or mistakenly). The Muslim baker would not have to write "Happy Gay Marriage" on your cake. They would have to sell you any cake that they openly offer to the public. Big difference.
 
No. You are missing the point (either purposefully or mistakenly). The Muslim baker would not have to write "Happy Gay Marriage" on your cake. They would have to sell you any cake that they openly offer to the public. Big difference.

Right. They offer "put your message on a cake with a pic( provide pic, we print on cake ) for 9.99".
 
TV and Radio have to air political advertisements because they are part of the media/airwaves - public access issues. The same laws do not apply to private businesses for obvious reasons. Its not even close to being related. Come up with a better analogy...this one is just silly.

Oh no. Your store front is in public view. You don't like the analogy because it calls out the hypocrisy of what you are doing, but the reality is that my analogy is as unfair as the idea that you can force someone to work for you even if it violates their personal and religious beliefs.
 
Right. They offer "put your message on a cake with a pic( provide pic, we print on cake ) for 9.99".

That becomes a little more difficult. However, while they would still be required to provide the cake, it is likely that the current law would not require them to write something on the cake that they do not want to, even if they offer to "put your message on a cake". There are similar cases where someone didn't want to print profanity, etc that were found to not violate the law. I imagine that if the Christian Baker didn't want to write "Happy Gay Marriage" that would be ok. They just can't refuse to provide the cake.
 
Oh no. Your store front is in public view. You don't like the analogy because it calls out the hypocrisy of what you are doing, but the reality is that my analogy is as unfair as the idea that you can force someone to work for you even if it violates their personal and religious beliefs.

No. Face it, it was a poor analogy. Try harder to come up with something more on point. There are FCC laws that regulate the airwaves in the public interest. I'm happy to respond to an appropriate analogy. Put some thought into it and then get back to me.
 
Well....you would be wrong. Sorry. It may have been the intent of the customer to cause discord...but THAT isn't discrimination.

I doubt that you and I would agree on what day of the week it is, much less an issue like this.

If you pick someone out of a crowd based on a single characteristic with the sole intent of causing them harm then I'd say that's pretty much the textbook definition of discrimination.
 
That becomes a little more difficult. However, while they would still be required to provide the cake, it is likely that the current law would not require them to write something on the cake that they do not want to, even if they offer to "put your message on a cake". There are similar cases where someone didn't want to print profanity, etc that were found to not violate the law. I imagine that if the Christian Baker didn't want to write "Happy Gay Marriage" that would be ok. They just can't refuse to provide the cake.

With the current law, they would have a potential defense for refusing the work, but could still be held liable for discrimination against me, your hypothetical gay activist looking to pick a fight. And in Indiana, they would also have a potential defense against a civil suit on the same test.

In my opinion, that was the point of the law, and not to codify outright ad-hoc discrimination.
 
Gee, wouldn't it be nice if every jurisdiction passed a law that said if you want to open a business that sells to the public you must sell to each and every person who enters your business provided they are polite, decent, exhibit proper hygiene, are not disruptive, and have a means of paying for the goods and/or services they wish to purchase. Otherwise, consider another profession or line of work.

That doesn't work either. If someone comes into my office and tells me that they want to pay me $30k to do their tax return but their income is from heroin trafficking I'm still going to ask them to leave even though it would be perfectly legal for me to do the return.
 
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?

There isn't much discrimination anymore, but the reason for that is most of it was made illegal and business has adapted to that - it's become a marketplace norm. For the vast majority of the population rules protect sexual orientation in addition to race, religion, etc. The point is the laws reflect our beliefs as a community and our expectations and they have worked. It would be IMO a huge mistake to assume because the laws have worked that we can repeal those laws. If we accept discrimination as legal, we are (as I see it) sending a community signal that it's OK. That's a step in the wrong direction.
 
With the current law, they would have a potential defense for refusing the work, but could still be held liable for discrimination against me, your hypothetical gay activist looking to pick a fight. And in Indiana, they would also have a potential defense against a civil suit on the same test.

In my opinion, that was the point of the law, and not to codify outright ad-hoc discrimination.

I don't think so. Current laws have sided with businesses of this limited issue. I don't think that the law requires any specific writing as long as they provide the public. There are situations where a printer has refused to print flyers containing profanity and swastikas and the like. In other words, I don't think a gay couple could force the "Christian" or "Muslim" baker to put two men on a cake or draw a gay symbol. But if they want to buy a cake that they offer to the public, the baker cannot turn them away just because the baker thinks they are "icky".
 
98901
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.

You are speaking of your own morality, not the practice of religion and worship.
 
No. Face it, it was a poor analogy. Try harder to come up with something more on point. There are FCC laws that regulate the airwaves in the public interest. I'm happy to respond to an appropriate analogy. Put some thought into it and then get back to me.

No, the analogy is fine.
 
I don't think so. Current laws have sided with businesses of this limited issue. I don't think that the law requires any specific writing as long as they provide the public. There are situations where a printer has refused to print flyers containing profanity and swastikas and the like. In other words, I don't think a gay couple could force the "Christian" or "Muslim" baker to put two men on a cake or draw a gay symbol. But if they want to buy a cake that they offer to the public, the baker cannot turn them away just because the baker thinks they are "icky".

RFRA applies to more situations than what we are talking about, and RFRA wouldn't protect a business from discriminating due to "icky".
 
I doubt that you and I would agree on what day of the week it is, much less an issue like this.

If you pick someone out of a crowd based on a single characteristic with the sole intent of causing them harm then I'd say that's pretty much the textbook definition of discrimination.

Its Tuesday...and if you said it was any other day, you would be wrong as well.

What you right MAY not be the right thing to do, but it is not discrimination. Look....if someone I knew where having a gay wedding and they purposefully sought out a florist or a baker or a wedding hall that had strong religious beliefs against gay marriage I would say that they are wrong. Certainly the bigoted business is wrong...but as a human being, where there are other alternatives I would say choose the other alternatives and let the bigots go about their business....their loss....someone elses gain. I wouldn't want to give the bigots my business regardless. But if they choose to do so, under the laws of our land, they are entitled to do so and the business cannot discriminate against them and turn them away. That is what is great about America.
I wouldn't ever want to eat in a restaurant that wouldn't allow blacks to eat at their counter, but if a black person wants to give them his/her business then they should have the right to do so and the bigot shouldn't be allowed to turn them away just because they don't like their skin color.
 
I don't think so. Current laws have sided with businesses of this limited issue. I don't think that the law requires any specific writing as long as they provide the public. There are situations where a printer has refused to print flyers containing profanity and swastikas and the like. In other words, I don't think a gay couple could force the "Christian" or "Muslim" baker to put two men on a cake or draw a gay symbol. But if they want to buy a cake that they offer to the public, the baker cannot turn them away just because the baker thinks they are "icky".

So does that mean all the baker has to do is make every cake custom? It would seem to me that if every cake was custom then people like yourself couldn't use the "but it's in the book" argument.
 
RFRA applies to more situations than what we are talking about, and RFRA wouldn't protect a business from discriminating due to "icky".

Actually Indiana's law does. This is how it is different than other states.
 
98901

You are speaking of your own morality, not the practice of religion and worship.

No. I am speaking of religion. No religion says "follow my rules why you are at worship." Religion is a 24/7, 365 prospect.
 
That doesn't work either. If someone comes into my office and tells me that they want to pay me $30k to do their tax return but their income is from heroin trafficking I'm still going to ask them to leave even though it would be perfectly legal for me to do the return.

Maybe tell him you'll list his profession as "HEROIN DEALER" on page 2? Although that might not matter.

I've never been involved with any drug dealers, but have worked with/for a number of gamblers. The smart ones knew the only real problem they had was the IRS, so were pretty good clients with excellent records. We did accurately describe the business in all those cases.
 
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.

Conscientious objection refers to service in the military. It's not cover for discrimination in the course of doing business.
 
No. I am speaking of religion. No religion says "follow my rules why you are at worship." Religion is a 24/7, 365 prospect.

If your religion requires you to be a bigot and discriminate fine...just don't open a business. You don't get to write your own rules and hide behind your religion just because you open shop.
 
Back
Top Bottom