• 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

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.

LOL, once again trying to insult when you have no answer.

This is definitely your M.O.

Please discuss the topic, if you can.
 
???

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

"In my day" (I typed it as if in a southern accent, as it was spoken) is a common expression referring to the past.

And of course gays can act normally in public these days, at least in most civilized places.
 
A: that's an opinion.
B: it would have been rightly shot down
C: was not the objective

This is manufactured bs.

A: An opinion shared by right leaning posters.
B: I agree, but some of those same right leaning posters thought it was air tight and was safe from the judiciary.
C: Then why wouldn't Gov. Pence just say that on Sunday? Yes or no question. (2:48 for the first of multiple instances to NOT answer the question) (3:49, 4:56, 9:58, 10:47 I may have missed one)
Will he push to add sexual orientation as a protected class in Indiana? No. (6:35)

This video would appear to refute your claim of manufactured BS, which conservatives are a part of. Supporters (Eric Miller of Advance America) standing with Gov. Pence as he signed the bill stated that Christian bakers, photographers and shouldn't be punished for refusing service to gay couples. (1:34) Seems they are are a part of the bruhaha.

[video]http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/gov-mike-pence-religious-freedom-law-29987447[/video]
 
...the govt should indeed demand signage... (if no signage was present). Yes, it does sound stupid...

But the signage would also protect those that were being rejected....

The difficulty is not with understanding, it's the predilection for the government involvement. And the signage, signage, signage.
 
A: An opinion shared by right leaning posters.
B: I agree, but some of those same right leaning posters thought it was air tight and was safe from the judiciary.
C: Then why wouldn't Gov. Pence just say that on Sunday? Yes or no question. (2:48 for the first of multiple instances to NOT answer the question) (3:49, 4:56, 9:58, 10:47 I may have missed one)
Will he push to add sexual orientation as a protected class in Indiana? No. (6:35)

This video would appear to refute your claim of manufactured BS, which conservatives are a part of. Supporters (Eric Miller of Advance America) standing with Gov. Pence as he signed the bill stated that Christian bakers, photographers and shouldn't be punished for refusing service to gay couples. (1:34) Seems they are are a part of the bruhaha.

[video]http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/gov-mike-pence-religious-freedom-law-29987447[/video]

I think Kathleen Parker is wise on this question.

Parker: Dear Indiana, compassion goes both ways
 
What is your solution?

Everyone needs to recognize that evolution of social/cultural attitudes toward LGBT has been extraordinarily rapid, maybe unprecedentedly so. It would therefore be wise for all parties to give each other some slack. Let's all exercise some actual tolerance instead of looking for opportunities to be outraged.
 
Everyone needs to recognize that evolution of social/cultural attitudes toward LGBT has been extraordinarily rapid, maybe unprecedentedly so. It would therefore be wise for all parties to give each other some slack. Let's all exercise some actual tolerance instead of looking for opportunities to be outraged.

What does slack mean to you?
 
What does slack mean to you?

Religious conservatives cannot expect to legislate LGBT citizens out of existence or treat them abusively. LGBT citizens cannot expect religious conservatives to affirmatively participate in activities that offend their consciences. This will be messy at times and thorough equality will remain aspirational, but the fact is that both sides have legitimate human rights claims.
 
Religious conservatives cannot expect to legislate LGBT citizens out of existence or treat them abusively. LGBT citizens cannot expect religious conservatives to affirmatively participate in activities that offend their consciences. This will be messy at times and thorough equality will remain aspirational, but the fact is that both sides have legitimate human rights claims.

How does that work? What are you suggesting?
 
I'm suggesting that both sides stop provoking confrontations and stop claiming to be outraged. There is no programmatic fix.
So let discrimination just take place? No thanks, I prefer a society without it.
 
I'm suggesting that both sides stop provoking confrontations and stop claiming to be outraged. There is no programmatic fix.

So when an LGBT person/couple approaches a business for a service or product and then are denied service due to religious religious belief said person/couple should?
 
So let discrimination just take place? No thanks, I prefer a society without it.

There will inevitably be discrimination, either against LGBT or against religious conservatives. Both groups have legitimate human rights claims. The religious conservatives also have a constitutional claim.
 
There will inevitably be discrimination, either against LGBT or against religious conservatives. Both groups have legitimate human rights claims. The religious conservatives also have a constitutional claim.
I fail to see how religious conservatives have a legitimate claim.
 
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.

Much to do about nothing.
 
So when an LGBT person/couple approaches a business for a service or product and then are denied service due to religious religious belief said person/couple should?

As I posted earlier, Parker has this right, IMHO.

". . . If even a few Christians, Jews or Muslims understand marriage to be the sacred union of man and woman in the eyes of God, activists seeking a fresh definition shouldn’t expect an immediate surrender. This doesn’t justify the refusal of a wedding cake, the baking of which hardly qualifies as an endorsement, but nor does it justify charges of bigotry, as is often said of religious people struggling with profound social restructuring.

This isn’t an excuse for what is, in fact, discrimination by any other name. It is an attempt at compassion sorely missing from most discussions of this and other laws that try to carve out a tiny space for people whose religious beliefs are being put asunder. As gay activist and conservative author Andrew Sullivan wrote last year, “We should give them [religious believers] space.”
Such as by, say, going to another bakery?
The market ultimately may settle these matters before the courts do. Pence’s latest move was prompted by corporate pressure as well as a few boycotts on state-funded travel to the Hoosier state.
As Indiana moves to clarify its intent, the perception of discrimination will persist until RFRA laws are eliminated. This is the goal of many activists. But discrimination is a two-way street, and tolerance should apply equally to sexual orientation as well as to religious belief.
There’s plenty of cake to go around."
 
A: An opinion shared by right leaning posters.
B: I agree, but some of those same right leaning posters thought it was air tight and was safe from the judiciary.
C: Then why wouldn't Gov. Pence just say that on Sunday? Yes or no question. (2:48 for the first of multiple instances to NOT answer the question) (3:49, 4:56, 9:58, 10:47 I may have missed one)
Will he push to add sexual orientation as a protected class in Indiana? No. (6:35)

This video would appear to refute your claim of manufactured BS, which conservatives are a part of. Supporters (Eric Miller of Advance America) standing with Gov. Pence as he signed the bill stated that Christian bakers, photographers and shouldn't be punished for refusing service to gay couples. (1:34) Seems they are are a part of the bruhaha.

[video]http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/gov-mike-pence-religious-freedom-law-29987447[/video]

That interview should be a complete embarrassment to anyone who lives in Indiana. I mean really... how freakin' difficult is it answering a direct "yes" or "no" question? Amazing how different he came across (after the backlash) a few days later :roll:. And correct me if I am wrong, but the law that Clinton signed 20 years ago that he kept on referring to (ad naseum) has a major difference to his. It included businesses as "people." BIG difference.
 
The difficulty is not with understanding, it's the predilection for the government involvement. And the signage, signage, signage.

There's no difficulty with the signage...it serves both bigot and bigotee. It also protects both, even tho only one might desire it (those being informed before they have to deal with the bigots). The govt is actively protecting their right to association there, even if the business owners prefer to 'protect' their own right to association by associating with (personally informing) those it desires not to associate with. (yup, still funny).

Still confusing for you, I know but basically it means that the govt involvement protects both's rights, one side that would desire it and one side that may or may not. And I agree with the govt protecting people's rights.
 
Then you should try to be more empathetic.
I will be as soon as I will hear of the first instance of someone who has been not allowed to pray or go to church, temple etc. or professing their faith.
 
Religious conservatives cannot expect to legislate LGBT citizens out of existence or treat them abusively. LGBT citizens cannot expect religious conservatives to affirmatively participate in activities that offend their consciences. This will be messy at times and thorough equality will remain aspirational, but the fact is that both sides have legitimate human rights claims.

I'm not sure about the bold. I believe that if they thought they could, they would. Many, but not most. But they would lose much of their less extreme voter base.

And yes, ensuring equality can be messy....but how much longer should blacks have had to wait after the Civil War? The Civil Rights movement was 100 yrs later. 100 yrs later, Jim Crow was still alive and well in the South, as well as some other places.

Yes, it was messy and even violent.....should the govt have just 'avoided' any action to move it forward and let the discrimination and injustices and literal dehumanization of a large group of people...citizens... in our country go on until that overt and legal racism just petered out on its own (IF it would have)?
 
As I posted earlier, Parker has this right, IMHO.

". . . If even a few Christians, Jews or Muslims understand marriage to be the sacred union of man and woman in the eyes of God, activists seeking a fresh definition shouldn’t expect an immediate surrender. This doesn’t justify the refusal of a wedding cake, the baking of which hardly qualifies as an endorsement, but nor does it justify charges of bigotry, as is often said of religious people struggling with profound social restructuring.

This isn’t an excuse for what is, in fact, discrimination by any other name. It is an attempt at compassion sorely missing from most discussions of this and other laws that try to carve out a tiny space for people whose religious beliefs are being put asunder. As gay activist and conservative author Andrew Sullivan wrote last year, “We should give them [religious believers] space.”

IMO, hypocrisy does not deserve 'space' or tolerance. Because it is pure hypocrisy.

There was no outrage, were no campaigns organized to end adulterers* and fornicators from marrying/remarrying, no legislation proposed challenging it, no 'family organizations' handing out pamphlets at the grocery store. Nor anyone speaking out against felons...murderers, rapists, pedophiles....marrying while in prison. No campaigns to keep athiests and the 'godless' from marrying.

No, just gays.

*The Catholic Church does forbid, still I think, adulterers to remarry in the Church but I'm not sure)
 
I will be as soon as I will hear of the first instance of someone who has been not allowed to pray or go to church, temple etc. or professing their faith.

They are obligated to live their faith in all they do.
 
Back
Top Bottom