• 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!

indiana caves on "RFRA", michigan governor says he would veto any "RFRA"

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Looks like the backlash paid off, shanty pizza joints notwithstanding:

"The compromise legislation specifies that the new religious freedom law cannot be used as a legal defense to discriminate against patrons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity."

Indiana governor signs amended 'religious freedom' law

Surely in response, michigan governor rick snyder did a very rare thing and revealed he would veto legislation ahead of time:

"Given all the events that are happening in Indiana, I thought it would be good to clarify my position," he said. "I would veto RFRA legislation in Michigan if it is a standalone piece of legislation."

Snyder: I would veto a religious freedom bill
 
Good news.
 
this makes the "protesters" look rather silly, actually.

they were told from the outset that this bill didn't permit discrimination, and the swift clarification simply proves that was correct.
 
this makes the "protesters" look rather silly, actually.

they were told from the outset that this bill didn't permit discrimination, and the swift clarification simply proves that was correct.

Wrong. Nice try though. The additional language is what makes it so it doesn't permit discrimination.
 
What is the point of the law now?
 
What is the point of the law now?

matches the federal religious freedom act, but applies to the state. Now it doesn't allow private companies to discriminate and then claim religion as a reason for it when they're sued.

Personally, I think all these laws should be overturned, but at least now indiana is no worse than the fed'l govt
 
Wrong. Nice try though. The additional language is what makes it so it doesn't permit discrimination.

it was never a permit to discriminate... not ever.

y'all were told that from the beginning.. and then Pence and the Indiana legislature had to go back and spell it out for the mental midgets.

congratulations, the only thing of substance you accomplished was making a pizza parlor family richer... well done.:lamo
 
matches the federal religious freedom act, but applies to the state. Now it doesn't allow private companies to discriminate and then claim religion as a reason for it when they're sued.

Personally, I think all these laws should be overturned, but at least now indiana is no worse than the fed'l govt

Why even bother doing that?
 
Well what's interesting to me about it is the religious right is crying that this neuters their discriminatory law, while dems are crying that it doesn't go far enough...

I think the latter refers to the fact there still isn't a civil rights law for lgbt in most of indiana. What "rfra" aimed to do was remove the protections in the 12 cities, because even that was too much for the religious right
 
Last edited:
it was never a permit to discriminate... not ever.

y'all were told that from the beginning.. and then Pence and the Indiana legislature had to go back and spell it out for the mental midgets.

congratulations, the only thing of substance you accomplished was making a pizza parlor family richer... well done.:lamo

Riiiiiiiiight. If you believe that....then explain why Pence refused to answer the point blank question. There is no doubt that the law was intended to allow private businesses to deny services to gays. All you have to do is look at he timing and the people behind it. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool or a liar.
 
Riiiiiiiiight. If you believe that....then explain why Pence refused to answer the point blank question. There is no doubt that the law was intended to allow private businesses to deny services to gays. All you have to do is look at he timing and the people behind it. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool or a liar.

Don't know why he's complaining anyway, since he is giddy at any such discrimination

This is politicians trying to save face and claim some kind of justification for their position even existing, after they passed a law that nearly (and still might) wrecked havoc on the state's economy

If they wanted to "clarify" that it doesn't allow discrimination, they could have easily done so from the start
 
Last edited:
Riiiiiiiiight. If you believe that....then explain why Pence refused to answer the point blank question. There is no doubt that the law was intended to allow private businesses to deny services to gays. All you have to do is look at he timing and the people behind it. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool or a liar.

if it was intended to allow discrimination, they wouldn't have added a clarification that resulted in the exact opposite of it's intent.

from day 1, they were saying it was not a permit to discriminate... now we know they were telling the truth.
you admitting as much in inconsequential to the fact.
 
Don't know why he's complaining anyway, since he is giddy at any such discrimination

This is politicians trying to save face and claim some kind of justification for their position even existing, after they passed a law that nearly (and still might) wrecked havoc on the state's economy

If they wanted to "clarify" that it doesn't allow discrimination, they could have easily done so from the start

don't lie about me again.
 
Are you disappointed now that it can't be used to discriminate against gays?

Because I oppose anti-discrimination laws and support human rights. :shrug:
 
if it was intended to allow discrimination, they wouldn't have added a clarification that resulted in the exact opposite of it's intent.

from day 1, they were saying it was not a permit to discriminate... now we know they were telling the truth.
you admitting as much in inconsequential to the fact.

Um, if it wasn't a permit to discriminate, they wouldn't have to amend it, would they?
 
Well what's interesting to me about it is the religious right is crying that this neuters their discriminatory law, while dems are crying that it doesn't go far enough...

I think the latter refers to the fact there still isn't a civil rights law for lgbt in most of indiana. What "rfra" aimed to do was remove the protections in the 12 cities, because even that was too much for the religious right

to be fair, those reactions are coming from associations whom exist to advocate for a specific agenda... of course none of them will be happy.... no one is ever happy unless they get their way 100% anymore.
 
Um, if it wasn't a permit to discriminate, they wouldn't have to amend it, would they?
.. it's called a clarification... it's been all over the news that they were adding in words to clarify what the bill does and doesn't do.


if permitting discrimination was it's intent... why would they amend it to mean the exact opposite of the alleged intent?

as stated, they clarified what the bill does.... they didn't change the substantive meaning whatsoever.
 
if it was intended to allow discrimination, they wouldn't have added a clarification that resulted in the exact opposite of it's intent.

from day 1, they were saying it was not a permit to discriminate... now we know they were telling the truth.
you admitting as much in inconsequential to the fact.

They were back peddling away from the original intent because of the publish uproar. Do you seriously not understand this or are you trolling?
 
They were back peddling away from the original intent because of the publish uproar. Do you seriously not understand this or are you trolling?

ahh... so you too believe they changed the law to the exact opposite of it's alleged original intent?

I believe they clarified the bill along the lines of what they were saying since day 1
 
ahh... so you too believe they changed the law to the exact opposite of it's alleged original intent?

I believe they clarified the bill along the lines of what they were saying since day 1

Well it all turned out good in the end. No discrimination and everyone is happy.
 
Back
Top Bottom