• 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!

Georgia Governor Rejects Bill Shielding Critics of Gay Marriage

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,689
Reaction score
39,315
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Georgia Governor Rejects Bill Shielding Critics of Gay Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

ATLANTA — In a striking defeat to religious conservatives, Gov. Nathan Deal of Georgia said Monday that he would veto a bill intended to protect critics of same-sex marriage.

“In light of our history, I find it somewhat ironic that some in the religious community today feel that it is necessary for government to confer upon them certain rights and protections,” Mr. Deal said at the State Capitol, where he had faced intense pressure from the bill’s supporters and critics. “If indeed our religious liberty is conferred upon us by God, and not by man-made government, perhaps we should simply heed the hands-off admonition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Mr. Deal, a Republican in his second term, announced his decision less than two weeks after the General Assembly easily approved House Bill 757, which its supporters named the Free Exercise Protection Act. The vote tallies from March 16, when both the House of Representatives and the Senate considered the bill over a stretch of a few hours, indicate that Mr. Deal’s veto is likely to stand.
Thoughts are?
 
Thoughts are?

The right choice, there would have been economic consequence to Georgia Republicans who wanted to allow people to discriminate against really anyone they do not religiously agree with (that part is a bit argumentative based on the final version of the bill, but there were plenty of businesses and organizations ready to pull the plug on doing things in Georgia anyway.)

Deal had to veto, or he would have ended up the governor that watched too much economic benefit walk right out of the State.
 
seems like state sponsored discrimination against homosexuals doesn't fly well with the public, but more importantly, it doesn't fly with the business community. Georgia stood to lose a lot of money, and politicians don't like losing a lot of money. same thing came close to happening in Indiana a while back.
 
Georgia Governor Rejects Bill Shielding Critics of Gay Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/u...nd-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Thoughts are?

If this bill had not been vetoed, it would have become a rallying cry against all republican candidates everywhere. The idiot that runs North Carolina is about to learn that the hard way. His state is going to suffer financially because he and his fellow backwards idiots legalized discrimination.

I think the Governor did the right thing.
 
seems like state sponsored discrimination against homosexuals doesn't fly well with the public, but more importantly, it doesn't fly with the business community. Georgia stood to lose a lot of money, and politicians don't like losing a lot of money. same thing came close to happening in Indiana a while back.

Discrimination against homosexuals? It sounded more like the Neo Liberal bigotry we see so often now.
 
Discrimination against homosexuals? It sounded more like the Neo Liberal bigotry we see so often now.

if you want to be pissed at someone for putting you at risk of having to bake a gay birthday cake, the correct target of your anger should be corporations. they are the ones who put a cable tie around the governor's testicles and threatened to cinch it.

either way, i don't care. i see no compelling argument that discrimination due to sexual orientation should be state sanctioned.
 
if you want to be pissed at someone for putting you at risk of having to bake a gay birthday cake, the correct target of your anger should be corporations. they are the ones who put a cable tie around the governor's testicles and threatened to cinch it.

either way, i don't care. i see no compelling argument that discrimination due to sexual orientation should be state sanctioned.

That is the story that the Governor likes to tell, I am sure. The thing is that i don't remember it having been corporate bigots that prosecuted the various conscious objectors and ruined them.
 
Discrimination against homosexuals? It sounded more like the Neo Liberal bigotry we see so often now.

'neo-liberal bigotry'...did you invent that or is it something you picked up from right wing sewer radio?
 
Bigotry and hatred defeated once again. A victory for the good values of America.

bigotry and hatred fought with bigotry and hatred hmm I guess no moral high ground gained.
 
He understands that his state's economic future should not be in the hands of bigots.

religious bigots are still bigots not matter how much you want to deny it.
 
religious bigots are still bigots not matter how much you want to deny it.

I know. That's why he vetoed the bill. And I don't deny that there are religious bigots out there. Most bigotry in the world is based on either race or religion. Southern Baptists take a back seat to nobody in this country for bigotry. They even justified slavery based on the bible.
 
'neo-liberal bigotry'...did you invent that or is it something you picked up from right wing sewer radio?

It is such well defined behavior that the term is obvious and will hurt the feelings of those to whom it applies. It was the same in the times of Martin Luther King in certain circles of the South, only the bigotry was aimed at another minority.
 
That is the story that the Governor likes to tell, I am sure. The thing is that i don't remember it having been corporate bigots that prosecuted the various conscious objectors and ruined them.

you think he vetoed that bill because of left leaning message board posters? lol. sure. either way, if a gay person isn't denied service somewhere because the bill got vetoed, i'm sure that you'll manage to live through it.
 
you think he vetoed that bill because of left leaning message board posters? lol. sure. either way, if a gay person isn't denied service somewhere because the bill got vetoed, i'm sure that you'll manage to live through it.

Did I say that? But I dislike the slithery way you jump from provocation to insinuation without ever any substance. Let's call the end of the discussion.
 
Did I say that? But I dislike the slithery way you jump from provocation to insinuation without ever any substance. Let's call the end of the discussion.

fair enough.
 
bigotry and hatred fought with bigotry and hatred hmm I guess no moral high ground gained.

LOL....tolerance does not require one to be tolerant of the intolerant. Your attempt has failed. I don't hate the bigots...I pity them...many of them profess to worship their Lord Jesus Christ...but understand nothing about the man they claim to follow.
 
I know. That's why he vetoed the bill. And I don't deny that there are religious bigots out there. Most bigotry in the world is based on either race or religion. Southern Baptists take a back seat to nobody in this country for bigotry. They even justified slavery based on the bible.

ol know you missed the entire point.
anti-religious people are bigots.

they attempt to claim some moral high ground but they fail in their own bigotry of religious people.
they are far more militant in their views than any religious person I know.
 
LOL....tolerance does not require one to be tolerant of the intolerant. Your attempt has failed. I don't hate the bigots...I pity them...many of them profess to worship their Lord Jesus Christ...but understand nothing about the man they claim to follow.

then you don't understand the definition of tolerance. if you want I can post it for you.

no no failure at all. fighting bigotry and hatred with bigotry and hatred doesn't award someone a moral high ground.
no I have seen enough of your posts to pretty much know you really don't like anyone with a religious view point.

funny I don't know to many religious people that hate gays. they just don't agree that they should be forced to recognize
their beliefs.

so my point pretty much stands. hate and bigotry fought with hate and bigotry doesn't equate to a moral high ground.
 
Georgia Governor Rejects Bill Shielding Critics of Gay Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/u...nd-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Thoughts are?

A good decision. The bill would have legalized non-market-based discrimination when it comes to serving customers. It would have basically enabled businesses to employ a litmus test when determining whether or not to serve customers and that litmus test would have had nothing to do with market-based factors (whether customers are willing and able to pay for a product or service).
 
Perhaps this will help some conservatives see the danger of corporate power and money over politics. A lot of corporations are responding to a more liberal political atmosphere and I expect there will be an increasing trend of corporations taking up for liberal viewpoints. While this is nice for liberals in the short term and not so nice for conservatives, the core problem remains, money in politics creating undue influence and the will of the people being drowned out.
 
Perhaps this will help some conservatives see the danger of corporate power and money over politics. A lot of corporations are responding to a more liberal political atmosphere and I expect there will be an increasing trend of corporations taking up for liberal viewpoints. While this is nice for liberals in the short term and not so nice for conservatives, the core problem remains, money in politics creating undue influence and the will of the people being drowned out.

I think you're misusing "liberal" for "social" in this instance, but otherwise you're right.
 
Back
Top Bottom