• 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

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.

I am not sure that the referral would not compromise the co in the same way. Don't forget that participating in the legal process of instituting abortion is considered self excommunication. So referring to an abortionist could be construed as participation.
 
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.

Don'T be ridiculous. If you cannot see the force and government interference in free religious practice, it is hardly worth talking with you. So please don't be obstinate and argue with better sense.
 
Conscientious objection refers to service in the military. It's not cover for discrimination in the course of doing business.

That is an off the wall statement.
 
"Likes whoring"? gtfo.

I conscientiously object to the pink n blue on my cake <crying emoticon please>
 
And is there something in liberal ideology that says a quaker can consciously object to laws requiring participation in a war, but cannot object to what kind of cupcakes he/she provides gays?

Librealism is not a religion. :doh
 
:doh

"In ma day, you could tell on which side a man's bread was buttered."

???

It's not uncommon these days to see homosexuals publicly displaying affection, such as holding hands.
 
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.

It wasn't, that's completely dishonest of you. It was intended, to mirror the National RFRA that was barred from being applied to state courts. The only ones that screamed discrimination were those with a political agenda. This is to clarify that those people are idiots.
 
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?

Why do you automatically assume the gay couple wouldn't want a Christian themed cake?
 
Bingo....and that is how it was different and the cause behind the outrage. Pence and the bigots were hoping to expand their version and were caught in their lies. Oops....now they are doing damage control.

Which means you are incorrect that it allows people to discriminate for any reason. You need to keep your story straight.

Pence has asked for clarification to appease those with pitchforks that don't understand basic reading comprehension.
 
Last edited:
That is an off the wall statement.

No it's not.

con·sci·en·tious ob·jec·tor
noun
noun: conscientious objector; plural noun: conscientious objectors

a person who for reasons of conscience objects to serving in the armed forces.

============
That person is still forced by the govt. to perform service when conscripted.
 
No it's not.

con·sci·en·tious ob·jec·tor
noun
noun: conscientious objector; plural noun: conscientious objectors

a person who for reasons of conscience objects to serving in the armed forces.

============
That person is still forced by the govt. to perform service when conscripted.

I know what the normal usage was. I was using it as a descriptive phrase and not as a fixed term.

I am also sure you dislike that the phrase fits so well in connotation as well as with the component words.
 
I knew it would upset you. But don't worry. It give the thing the right spin.

So weird <-- your posts.

It doesn't upset me, I am simply explaining to you a term you misused.

Consider yourself educated on it now.

You're welcome.
 
Which means you are incorrect that it allows people to discriminate for any reason. You need to keep your story straight.

Pence has asked for clarification to appease those with pitchforks that don't understand basic reading comprehension.

LOL...too funny. Pence asked for "clarification" because he got caught. It he was telling the truth and the law didn't allow people to discriminate, why did he refuse to answer the question 6 times? SIX TIMES? Doh!. You guys are fools if you believe the rhetoric that they are selling you. You need look no further than the fact that if Pence and the bigots were telling the truth....there would be no need to change the law. They are trying to figure out how to save face now that they got they encurred the wrath of the American people which they were not expecting. Talk about poor judgement.
 
LOL...too funny. Pence asked for "clarification" because he got caught. It he was telling the truth and the law didn't allow people to discriminate, why did he refuse to answer the question 6 times? SIX TIMES? Doh!. You guys are fools if you believe the rhetoric that they are selling you. You need look no further than the fact that if Pence and the bigots were telling the truth....there would be no need to change the law. They are trying to figure out how to save face now that they got they encurred the wrath of the American people which they were not expecting. Talk about poor judgement.

Ha, no. He is trying to make it perfectly clear how laws work, down to the least common denominator: the asshats that don't understand how laws work. Its a sign of the times, and the coming reality of Idiocracy.
 
Ha, no. He is trying to make it perfectly clear how laws work, down to the least common denominator: the asshats that don't understand how laws work. Its a sign of the times, and the coming reality of Idiocracy.

Wow....take off your blinders man. If that were true....why did Pence refuse to answer the question 6 times? Seriously dude....SIX TIMES. Don't be fooled.
 
Wow....take off your blinders man. If that were true....why did Pence refuse to answer the question 6 times? Seriously dude....SIX TIMES. Don't be fooled.

The entire episode can summarized with a picture:

wedge.jpg


Keep playing the game.
 
It wasn't, that's completely dishonest of you. It was intended, to mirror the National RFRA that was barred from being applied to state courts. The only ones that screamed discrimination were those with a political agenda. This is to clarify that those people are idiots.

You might want to address users on this board who thought it was a license to discriminate. There is a thread based on that topic.

The law might have been intended to mirror the RFRA, but it didn't. There was broad language in the Indiana bill that was not in the federal law. The fix is to clarify that language.

Here's the difference between the federal RFRA and 19 states as compared to Indiana law as it is now (before the fix):
First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation
 
And is there something in liberal ideology that says a quaker can consciously object to laws requiring participation in a war, but cannot object to what kind of cupcakes he/she provides gays?

Seriously?

The baker signed up to bake cupcakes for the public and accept money in return for those products and when doing so agreed to all kinds of rules about baking and selling food products.

The Quakers didn't sign up to kill people and only object which people they have to kill.
 
great come to Indiana we'll pay you less:roll:

That's why companies flock to Indiana and to some southern states. Cheap labor and no pesky unions to worry about.
 
You might want to address users on this board who thought it was a license to discriminate. There is a thread based on that topic.

The law might have been intended to mirror the RFRA, but it didn't. There was broad language in the Indiana bill that was not in the federal law. The fix is to clarify that language.

Here's the difference between the federal RFRA and 19 states as compared to Indiana law as it is now (before the fix):


Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation

A: that's an opinion.
B: it would have been rightly shot down
C: was not the objective

This is manufactured bs.
 
The entire episode can summarized with a picture:

wedge.jpg


Keep playing the game.

Well, you got one thing right, it's a red wedge. After all, it's the right-wing that is attempting to back discrimination and divide people, as usual.
 
A: that's an opinion.
B: it would have been rightly shot down
C: was not the objective

This is manufactured bs.

What's so funny is all the people engaged in this "manufactured BS" did was listen to supporters of the law while it was being considered - what they said the law was intended to do - and listened to Pence SIX TIMES refuse to say the law does NOT allow businesses to discriminate.

So if it's a manufactured controversy, blame the people lying about the intent and the result of the law, including the Governor. It's as if Pence is saying, "It's unfair you believed what my supporters, those pushing this bill, people I invited to the signing ceremony said about this bill!!! It has nothing to do with teh gays!! Sure, those guys RIGHT BEHIND ME WHILE I SIGN THIS said over and over it was all about teh gays, but they were wrong. TRUST ME!!"
 
They could associate all they want. Who cares? What are you even talking about? You have successfully made absolutely no case for the government to get involved. As usually, off on an irrelevant tangent. Yep, LOL is right.

Yes, the laughs keep coming. The subject, basically, is the right to freely associate...or not...as one chooses.

So if people do not want to associate with 'certain groups' then the govt should indeed demand signage. You did ignore the total practicality of my post in which it would require business owners to 'associate' with those they dont want to associate with in order to tell them they didnt want to associate with them (if no signage was present). Yes, it does sound stupid and yet that is how I consider such bigoted perspectives. It's laughable.

But the signage would also protect those that were being rejected....so that they did not have to associate with such bigots in order to be asked to leave. Not only that, they probably wouldnt want to associate (bring them their business) with them anyway.


I'm sure you'll have difficulty understanding this but that's ok. I enjoyed writing it out to emphasize the point and everyone else can read it as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom