• 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

Lursa said:
This was/is my post and it contains a good deal of content relevant to this discussion:



If you cannot form a reasonable response to it, then I suggest you stop bringing that fact to our attention, lol.
Click to expand...

Keep your eye on the shiny object... I'm moving on.
 
Lursa said:
I guess it was tough on all the people that believed blacks were 'less' too, and not equal. And there was plenty of religious support, even scripture "interpretations," that enabled it.

And you know what? I dont give crap about their 'consciences.' Wrong is wrong.

The Bible was written by men...in some cases, apparently homophobic ones.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
And yet, such people were allowed to marry. And going back to the Western world and say, the 1700's, nah, they'd pretty much even stopped the stoning.

As a matter of fact, lol, they were often *forced* to marry.
Click to expand...

You seem to be working out some issues not directly connected to our discussion.
 
Gina said:
"A little bit disappointed" is grossly minimizing the experience of having someone say to one's face, "We don't __________________ for homosexuals (or transsexuals)." That causes way more than a little bit of disappointment. If it's related to a wedding, at the least, they've cast a pall on the planning and maybe the event. They've also planted seeds of doubt or fear about what the next stop will bring. That's a really cruddy thing to have to put up with over something LGBTs cannot change.
Click to expand...

The compromise reportedly agreed to by both sides today is along the lines I suggested. As best I can make out this early, a restaurant asked to provide food for a gay wedding probably cannot refuse, but a caterer cannot be compelled to provide servers and other support personnel who would actually participate.
 
Deuce said:
You have a fundamentally flawed concept of how public accommodation laws work. You're trying to paint this in some kind of black and white universe where either every religious belief must be respected or nobody is allowed to follow any religious belief. I'm actually having a hard time describing your problem, because you are so far off the mark that you aren't even in the same universe as public accommodation laws.
Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - That isn't ambiguous. It doesn't say "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless we don't approve."

An actress is an employee, not a customer. She can choose not to work for a porn company. There's no problem with that.
Click to expand...

No. The actress is the sole proprietorship business and the customer is the porn company, in this example.

The company, on the other hand, can't refuse to sell her porn because she's a woman. Or because she's Jewish. Or latino. Similarly, the company cannot refuse to hire her because she's Jewish, or latino, or a woman. (although porn isn't a great example, because it would fall under the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exemption. A female role, whether in adult films or the regular kind, needs to be played by a female so the business can in fact refuse to hire men for that particular position. get it. position?)
Click to expand...

You aren't even in the right ball park here.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
Of course it is. You may wish to look it up and I assure you that denying it will not not make it any less bigoted.

Lets not. Stupid analogies only hurt your position of defending bigotry.
Click to expand...

Point out how it is bigotry to not participate in something that is counter to your closely held religious beliefs?
 
ksu_aviator said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - That isn't ambiguous. It doesn't say "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless we don't approve."
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that but that right is limited same as the rest of them. To bad for the religions requiring human sacrifice, sex with children, and multiple wives, etc.............

No. The actress is the sole proprietorship business and the customer is the porn company, in this example.
Click to expand...

I looked - porn companies aren't listed as public accommodations. Weird. :doh
 
cpwill said:
A hearer's emotional reaction to a statement =/= the intent of the speaker. That sentence can indeed be spoken in all innocence, regardless of how it is taken.
Click to expand...
See the post below.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:( Then you are acting the bigot, smearing entire groups of people, and are no better than those you oppose. I don't personally take offense, but it is sad - I've seen you think and write enough to know that you are smarter than to take those kind of intellectual shortcuts.
Click to expand...

You know, we're done.
 
Jack Hays said:
The compromise reportedly agreed to by both sides today is along the lines I suggested. As best I can make out this early, a restaurant asked to provide food for a gay wedding probably cannot refuse, but a caterer cannot be compelled to provide servers and other support personnel who would actually participate.
Click to expand...

I haven't had time to read the report today. I just saw the headline. I'll catch up and reply later.
 
Anthony60 said:
Keep your eye on the shiny object... I'm moving on.
Click to expand...

I believe you said that at least twice already, while I've kept posting on topic.

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...


My last question was why you feel the need to keep informing everyone that you're 'done.' lol
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
All you are answering is "the law is the law", as a standard. But if your standard for what should be the law is the law itself, then why protest against the Indiana law?



You offered "doing it for free". :roll:


What do you do for a living, Gina?
Click to expand...

No, I was referring also to morality...the word was there several times...not just law.

And 'non-profits' and 'private clubs' all generate incomes and provide salaries (2 examples I provided). So no, they dont have to work for free.

Please stop just posting anything, I imagine someone just randomly pulling words from my quotes out of the air and trying to formulate things that either agree with their beliefs or intentionally dont agree with their beliefs. PLease try to read what I actually write, with the words in the order I write them, and the intent you should (probably) understand by now.
 
Jack Hays said:
You seem to be working out some issues not directly connected to our discussion.
Click to expand...

No, you just continued to avoid supporting the claim you made several pages back because you cannot. You should have just let it drop, as I did....it's there for everyone to see. (Or, note my signature in green, below).
 
This is what you get when you don't pay close attention to who you are voting into office. This dense tea party Governor should never have been elected in the first place.
 
Lursa said:
No, you just continued to avoid supporting the claim you made several pages back because you cannot. You should have just let it drop, as I did....it's there for everyone to see. (Or, note my signature in green, below).
Click to expand...


I made no claim that has not been amply supported. The problem is that I cannot discern a question or issue for discussion amid the ranting.
 
Why do I get the feeling a hundred years from now people will look at what we is currently going on and come to the same conclusion: "Wow, those people were in deep sh$t from an economic standpoint, a global standpoint, and an immigration standpoint: and look, LOOK at what they were arguing about!!!
 
Deuce said:
You have a fundamentally flawed concept of how public accommodation laws work. You're trying to paint this in some kind of black and white universe where either every religious belief must be respected or nobody is allowed to follow any religious belief. I'm actually having a hard time describing your problem, because you are so far off the mark that you aren't even in the same universe as public accommodation laws.

An actress is an employee, not a customer. She can choose not to work for a porn company. There's no problem with that.

The company, on the other hand, can't refuse to sell her porn because she's a woman. Or because she's Jewish. Or latino. Similarly, the company cannot refuse to hire her because she's Jewish, or latino, or a woman. (although porn isn't a great example, because it would fall under the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exemption. A female role, whether in adult films or the regular kind, needs to be played by a female so the business can in fact refuse to hire men for that particular position. get it. position?)
Click to expand...

so bigotry is acceptable as long as you can use a fancy term and masturbate to it?

got it.
 
JoeTrumps said:
Why do I get the feeling a hundred years from now people will look at what we is currently going on and come to the same conclusion: "Wow, those people were in deep sh$t from an economic standpoint, a global standpoint, and an immigration standpoint: and look, LOOK at what they were arguing about!!!
Click to expand...

The country can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's cowardly and disingenuous to avoid legitimate civil rights issues until every other problem on the planet has been solved.
 
JoeTrumps said:
Why do I get the feeling a hundred years from now people will look at what we is currently going on and come to the same conclusion: "Wow, those people were in deep sh$t from an economic standpoint, a global standpoint, and an immigration standpoint: and look, LOOK at what they were arguing about!!!
Click to expand...

Of course, this has been the left's strategy for a long time. Gay rights, global warming, etc... issues that rank in the single digits as concerns for voters. They want the focus off the economy and jobs, which they have been a disaster at. They want minorities stomping into the voter booths, fired up about some unimportant issue, while the economy crumbles around them.

This works for them because of the large amount of low information voters, that have no idea what they are really voting for.
 
Jack Hays said:
I made no claim that has not been amply supported. The problem is that I cannot discern a question or issue for discussion amid the ranting.
Click to expand...

Does this refresh your memory? You never supported the bold, black.

Lursa said:
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)
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
The campaigns of which you are apparently unaware were quite powerful and lasted centuries.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Really? I would like some sources for that, specifically for the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...
 
JoeTrumps said:
Why do I get the feeling a hundred years from now people will look at what we is currently going on and come to the same conclusion: "Wow, those people were in deep sh$t from an economic standpoint, a global standpoint, and an immigration standpoint: and look, LOOK at what they were arguing about!!!
Click to expand...

You are right. It does appear that one party in our 2 party system has decided they don't wish to govern so they piddle around trying to score points with their base instead. Ii will be laughed at in the future too. The right wing crazies and libertarians got all hot and bothered by the thought of legally kicking gays out on their asses only to be shot down by Walmart. You just can't make these things up.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Meh, you're just opposite side of that very same coin.
Click to expand...

Nah man, there is a huge diff between a business discriminating and the state going out of its way to override decades-long city anti discrimination laws, targeting a single group in favor of a single religion in the process.

That is what these "RFRA" are all about
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Religion is a "protected class" under the civil rights act. LGBT is not

These "RFRA" were totally unnecessary and only came about to screw over lgbt
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

X i think it's worth pointing out that, despite all the attention the bakery got, very few accusations of discrimination boil down to refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

So i don't see why his response is such a big deal. I mean he may be wrong but really...

The vast majority of discrimination is in employment, housing, and small business service that does NOT cater weddings. None of that is disallowed under indiana law. That is the issue here
 
Gina said:
You know, we're done.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Sorry to hear that, and I hope that you reconsider your attitude towards others who disagree with you. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom