• 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's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained

disneydude said:
Why do you support a bigot not allowing blacks to sit at their lunchcounters? Is that "caving" and "poutrage" to you?
Click to expand...
Lets make sure we are clear on your double neagtive attempt to be snippy and pithy. I DO support a business owners right to not allow blacks to sit at their lunchcounters. Because I believe that people that would do something like that would out themselves far more easily and readily than by forcing racism underground. I believe ignorant ****heads that have throughout history tried to pummel and force people into acceptance have created a century of racial hatred and animus. I believe people that had such a business would go under in a heartbeat. I believe there are smarter ways to influence the hearts and minds of others than for you to run around in your assless chaps screaming about your rights and demanding acceptance as being 'normal'. Similar to many of the groups that attempted to force change in racial relationships, I think the gay community has been their own worst enemy.
 
VanceMack said:
Lets make sure we are clear on your double neagtive attempt to be snippy and pithy. I DO support a business owners right to not allow blacks to sit at their lunchcounters. Because I believe that people that would do something like that would out themselves far more easily and readily than by forcing racism underground. I believe ignorant ****heads that have throughout history tried to pummel and force people into acceptance have created a century of racial hatred and animus. I believe people that had such a business would go under in a heartbeat. I believe there are smarter ways to influence the hearts and minds of others than for you to run around in your assless chaps screaming about your rights and demanding acceptance as being 'normal'. Similar to many of the groups that attempted to force change in racial relationships, I think the gay community has been their own worst enemy.
Click to expand...

LOL.....Sorry....but without the demonstrations, marches and sit-ins that occurred during the civil rights movement....there may still be white-only lunch counters and drinking fountains today. Sometimes you have to actually take a stand for what is right. It is incredibly naive to believe that the "free-market" will drive out discrimination and bigotry.
 
VanceMack said:
Lets make sure we are clear on your double neagtive attempt to be snippy and pithy. I DO support a business owners right to not allow blacks to sit at their lunchcounters. Because I believe that people that would do something like that would out themselves far more easily and readily than by forcing racism underground. I believe ignorant ****heads that have throughout history tried to pummel and force people into acceptance have created a century of racial hatred and animus. I believe people that had such a business would go under in a heartbeat. I believe there are smarter ways to influence the hearts and minds of others than for you to run around in your assless chaps screaming about your rights and demanding acceptance as being 'normal'. Similar to many of the groups that attempted to force change in racial relationships, I think the gay community has been their own worst enemy.
Click to expand...


Absolutely!
 
Grand Mal said:
You apparently use the term 'liberal' differently than I do. Anyone who exploits anyone isn't a liberal and never has been, no matter what you or he says.
Click to expand...

liberals/progressives/Democraps/commies.....all the same to me.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....Sorry....but without the demonstrations, marches and sit-ins that occurred during the civil rights movement....there may still be white-only lunch counters and drinking fountains today. Sometimes you have to actually take a stand for what is right. It is incredibly naive to believe that the "free-market" will drive out discrimination and bigotry.
Click to expand...
Sorry...but try to THINK larger than that. You have to go back to 1850...not just 1950. By 1850 there were 20 free states and 16 slave states. The number of free new states outnumbered slave states 6 to 1 starting with California in 1850. Most slave states were recognizing that slavery was becoming passe if for no other reason than technology. Confederate border states were converting on their own. Maryland, West Virginia, Washington DC, Tennessee, and Missouri all abolished slavery before the civil war. Kentucky and Delaware were on the verge of abolishing slavery prior to the civil war. Slavery would have been abolished on its own without a civil war. The assimilation into white society would (I believe) have been a far smoother transition than what we experienced. When you attempt to FORCE people to do something, they tend to rebel.

Sorry if that is inconvenient for you but it is historical reality.
 
CriticalThought said:
Excellent, then you should oppose what Indiana did. In Utah they advanced religious protections with LGBT protections. They brought both sides to the table. In Indiana they deliberately chose not to bring the LGBT community to the table so they could advance a one sided agenda for social conservatives. Now they are trying to spin this law as absolutely no different than other RFRA laws when it is vastly broader and could have considerable unintended consequences for all minorities.
Click to expand...

Why should 3% of the population have to be treated differently than the other 97%?

The majority does not agree with the deviates of LGBT.....
 
countryboy said:
Revisionist bull****. It was republicans who championed civil rights legislation. Dims fought tooth and nail against it.
Click to expand...
It was LBJ, a southern Democrat president that signed the Civil Rights Act into law ....which caused the white southern Democrats to switch parties and become Republicans....which in turn caused black southern Republicans that championed Civil Rights to switch and become Democrats. Anyone with a half brain can see that the party of Lincoln is not the same party or demographic that it is today. Those that don't are the bull**** revisionists.
 
VanceMack said:
You keep telling yourslef that. Meanwhile...'liberal values' have ****ed over the black community across the country. Go ahead and blame it on conservatives, but its been pretty consistently said...every major city has one thing in common. Democrat 'leadership'.

Johnson was very straightforward about his intent. Malcolm X warned them. Its as relevant today as it was then.
[video=youtube;XkgA2rUAY-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o[video]
Click to expand...


Almost 150 years after reconstruction and the Southern red states are still the poorest and most uneducated in the union. Who do you blame for that?
 
MMC said:
That's Right JH and they should note how that Illinois law started out......before it made the passing grade with BO and all voting 56-0.

CNN just tried to jump into the game by trying to make something out of nothing. More than likely they did this to cover the negative tanking that BO peep, Hillary and the Demos have been taking with this last month.

Which CNN already knows there is more to come with Hillary's issues and the Lefts hopeful aspirations. As well as BO peep.

Clear example of CNN creating an issue out of nothing.

This is why the Liberal MS media is down to controlling 7 markets out of 21. That's in the Entire News Industry. Oh and 2 of those are over Hollywood and the Entertainment field. Now you know why their reporting is like it is.
Click to expand...


It's not the same bill, MMC. :2wave:

The Illinois bill only protected religious freedom for persons, not businesses.

The IN bill is so broad that it would allow a for-profit business to discriminate against anyone, at any time, for any reason based solely on religious belief and the victim would have no recourse in the courts of Indiana. I highly doubt Obama would've voted for a bill like this....but a right wing political hack surely would.
 
Moot said:
It was LBJ, a southern Democrat president that signed the Civil Rights Act into law ....which caused the white southern Democrats to switch parties and become Republicans....which in turn caused black southern Republicans that championed Civil Rights to switch and become Democrats. Anyone with a half brain can see that the party of Lincoln is not the same party or demographic that it is today. Those that don't are the bull**** revisionists.
Click to expand...
Trotting out that old chestnut again, are we? Again, more revisionist bull****. But, whatcha gonna do, it's all you got.
 
countryboy said:
Trotting out that old chestnut again, are we? Again, more revisionist bull****. But, whatcha gonna do, it's all you got.
Click to expand...


The Southern Confederates voted for Democrats when Lincoln was elected president. That's just common knowledge and the only people disputing that fact are revisionists or people ignorant of their own countries history. So which one are you?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
The deep south slave states were pushing for territories to also be slave states. When Lincoln was elected on a platform of preventing the addition of slavery to the territories that pushed the deep south slave states to secede in the defense of slavery.

Slavery wasn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Click to expand...
You either dont know history or choose not to believe history. The border states were already changing. Tennessee...Kentucky...changing. Missouri was changing. The climate (and most importantly...the NEED) for slavery was changing. Technology was changing. It wasnt cost effective for most people. Many in the south just simply saw the practice as wrong. Were there stalwarts? Of course. They would have been gone in relatively short order.
 
VanceMack said:
You either dont know history or choose not to believe history. The border states were already changing. Tennessee...Kentucky...changing. Missouri was changing. The climate (and most importantly...the NEED) for slavery was changing. Technology was changing. It wasnt cost effective for most people. Many in the south just simply saw the practice as wrong. Were there stalwarts? Of course. They would have been gone in relatively short order.
Click to expand...

And you're just trying to make excuses for the south. Like the people who say the CW wasn't about slavery, but it was about state rights. They're just making excuses for the south's slave past.

Anyway the deep south. Changing in short order? Nope.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
And you're just trying to make excuses for the south. Like the people who say the CW wasn't about slavery, but it was about state rights. They're just making excuses for the south's slave past.

Anyway the deep south. Changing in short order? Nope.
Click to expand...
I'm making no excuses, nor do any excuses need to be made. You are critical of the south? Holy ****...you must have a raging hard on for Detroit. Dearborn. Chicago. Gary. And lets not leave the west coast out. East LA.

Guess which parts of the country has the most dire economic circumstances for members of the black community?
 
VanceMack said:
You are critical of the south? Holy ****...you must have a raging hard on for Detroit. Dearborn. Chicago. Gary. And lets not leave the west coast out. East LA.
Click to expand...

Give it a **** ing rest. Funny how the conservatives never mention the liberal cities, like NY and SF, and Seattle, etc that are doing great.

Anyway I have nothing against the south, I do have a problem with the recent surge of Republican politicians who are bigots and their fanatical social agendas, and who lately for the most part happen to be from the south.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Give it a **** ing rest. Funny how the conservatives never mention the liberal cities, like NY and SF, and Seattle, etc that are doing great.

Anyway I have nothing against the south, I do have a problem with the recent surge of Republican politicians who are bigots and their fanatical social agendas, and who lately for the most part happen to be from the south.
Click to expand...
Yay...you have...3? Good job!

And for the record...SF isnt doing all that great. Oh...sure...their WEALTHY are. But thats kinda SOOOO not SF...right?
 
MickeyW said:
Why should 3% of the population have to be treated differently than the other 97%?

The majority does not agree with the deviates of LGBT.....
Click to expand...

Good thing I live in a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. The majority certainly does not dictate right and wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
Yay...you have...3? Good job!

And for the record...SF isnt doing all that great. Oh...sure...their WEALTHY are. But thats kinda SOOOO not SF...right?
Click to expand...



Mornin VM. :2wave: Yesterday Arkansas Senate passed an RFRA. The governor said to get him the Bill. Asap.....he will sign it. He has seen how Lamestream Media and the left has played with this issue.

I think he wants to keep them riled up since now the left has used Business and Corporations to speak out. Showing that both are people. Imagine that! :lol:
 
CriticalThought said:
Good thing I live in a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. The majority certainly does not dictate right and wrong.
Click to expand...

Yep. One of the biggest reason for the Constitution is to protect minorities from the majority. Of course many on the right don't want to hear about that, they only care about the 2nd Amendment. And to hell with the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom