• 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 Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Every one among us a sinner. I am....you are....everyone is. It is due to our sins that we have the sacrifice of Christ. Again....you are attempting to pidgeonhole the man without understanding his teachings. If you want to have a conversation about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ...educate yourself and then get back to me. There is no question that Christ would find the actions of these bigots disgraceful. Sorry.
Yep...and our goal should NOT be "**** YEAH!!! Im A SINNER!!! Whahoooo!!!! Ima ****in do this some MORE!!!"

Not if you are a 'Christian'. If that were your attitude, you would still be loved. Fathers love their children unconditionally. But you would still be judged by your actions.

Your rhetoric about Christ is laughable. You attempt to pimp out Christ for your cause...and you want to talk about disgraceful?

Go forth...and sin no more.

I still love you.

But...

sin no more.
 
Doesn't make sense. If all he was doing was responding to lies....he wouldn't need to change the law now would he? The reality is....yes, he IS doing damage control because he didn't expect to incur the wrath of the American people. He is caught in the past where anti-gay politics were profitable for Republicans. You need look no further than the people surrounding him at the signing that the attacks were in fact VERY true and that he was caught lying about the incentive behind the bill and what the bill really did.

So....you have avoided the question thus far. Do you think Pence is a liar or just an idiot?

That's good. Did you spend a lot of time coming up with that question? Obama voted for nearly identical legislation while a state senator in Illinois. What, exactly, is the difference? Go look at the legislation before you answer.
 
There has been no case in Indiana of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

OK, assuming that's true, then write what's already happening into the law like most of the states with a RFRA bill. Pretty simple solution. All those fears will disappear!
 
I am asking him.
That said, what is your opinion on the matter?

My position should be obvious to you after the last few days, but since you asked, my position is that everyone has the right to decide on who they will commence in commerce with. It is my position based on the facts of the situation that refusing someone service does not harm them, but simply does not give them the assistance that the goods or services that were refused could have provided. It is my position that the government has no constitutional authority to demand people provide each other their labor, provide someone service, give up their property for the benefit of someone else, associate with someone against their will, or to force them into contracts with other citizens.
 
That's what happens when you invite them to the PRIVATE SIGNING CEREMONY.

Ron Paul got a lot of grief from support from right wing hate groups. That was unfair - you can't pick your supporters. But if he had invited them to the stage in a speech, then he's embraced them and their views. Sorry but that's how it works.

And give me a break - Pence has a 100% or 0% rating on just about any issue involving rights for LGBT. We know he doesn't care a thing about protecting them, he opposes extending a statewide protection to them against discrimination, opposes SSM, supported a Constitutional amendment to prohibit SSM, supported DADT. He's got a record, and those supporting the bill are his buddies, his core supporters, and he's supported them with perfect records on issues important to him.

You're asking people to ignore this context. It's ridiculous.

His record on LGBT issues was, until not so long ago, indistinguishable from Obama's.
 
That's good. Did you spend a lot of time coming up with that question? Obama voted for nearly identical legislation while a state senator in Illinois. What, exactly, is the difference? Go look at the legislation before you answer.

Hmm didn't realize Obama was a part of the topic...
 
OK, assuming that's true, then write what's already happening into the law like most of the states with a RFRA bill. Pretty simple solution. All those fears will disappear!

Why write an additional law for which there is no apparent need?
 
That's good. Did you spend a lot of time coming up with that question? Obama voted for nearly identical legislation while a state senator in Illinois. What, exactly, is the difference? Go look at the legislation before you answer.

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Don't bring facts into this discussion, humbolt. It just confuses people who have their minds made up. :shock:
 
Why write an additional law for which there is no apparent need?

Because apparently liberals realize the laws aren't needed, but want them anyway. That is how unbelievably silly they are when it comes to this stuff.
 
His record on LGBT issues was, until not so long ago, indistinguishable from Obama's.

Even if true, and I highly doubt it, "not so long ago" is irrelevant. Obama has supported some sweeping changes that have all been in favor of LGBT - revolutionary changes. It is a different era in 2015 and Pence seems to have missed the bus and is mired in the 1960s.
 
That's good. Did you spend a lot of time coming up with that question? Obama voted for nearly identical legislation while a state senator in Illinois. What, exactly, is the difference? Go look at the legislation before you answer.

The text of the laws is very close but the effect is completely different. Illinois has other laws that include LGBT as a protected class. Indiana does not. This means that, even if the text of the RFRA in Illinois and Indiana were exactly the same, businesses in Illinois could not refuse service to someone just because they are gay. In Indiana, they can and the people who wrote the law in Indiana knew that. That is what makes the "we didn't mean to discriminate against anyone" spin coming from Pence so disingenuous. The religious bigots in Indiana thought they could get away with this and they are stunned by the backlash. Now, they are going to lie about their intent.
 
Why write an additional law for which there is no apparent need?

LOL. He's buddies with anti-SSM/gay orgs. His voting record is 100% or 0% on the issues important to them, which include opposing any attempt to extend rights to gays, and a dedicated and vocal effort to oppose SSM. What you're saying is the LGBT community should trust him and the GOP.... I assume you're joking. If not it's still :lamo
 
Even if true, and I highly doubt it, "not so long ago" is irrelevant. Obama has supported some sweeping changes that have all been in favor of LGBT - revolutionary changes. It is a different era in 2015 and Pence seems to have missed the bus and is mired in the 1960s.

Their positions were indistinguishable as recently as 2011.
 
Because apparently liberals realize the laws aren't needed, but want them anyway. That is how unbelievably silly they are when it comes to this stuff.

Liberals listen to the anti-SSM, anti-gay orgs he's in bed with and trust that their interests are NOT aligned with the LGBT community. So, yes, the laws ARE needed because organized, powerful, well funded groups headed by very smart people including very sharp lawyers are working hard to strip rights or prevent them from being extended to the LGBT community.

You're saying something like - hey, that pit bull over there trained to attack liberals isn't a threat. No need for a chain or a fence. Promise, he won't hurt you.
 
LOL. He's buddies with anti-SSM/gay orgs. His voting record is 100% or 0% on the issues important to them, which include opposing any attempt to extend rights to gays, and a dedicated and vocal effort to oppose SSM. What you're saying is the LGBT community should trust him and the GOP.... I assume you're joking. If not it's still :lamo

There has been no case brought about discrimination against LGBT in Indiana.
 
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Don't bring facts into this discussion, humbolt. It just confuses people who have their minds made up. :shock:

Yeah. Pence is discriminating because he's conservative. Obama wasn't because he's a liberal. Huge difference. Huge.
 
The text of the laws is very close but the effect is completely different. Illinois has other laws that include LGBT as a protected class. Indiana does not. This means that, even if the text of the RFRA in Illinois and Indiana were exactly the same, businesses in Illinois could not refuse service to someone just because they are gay. In Indiana, they can and the people who wrote the law in Indiana knew that. That is what makes the "we didn't mean to discriminate against anyone" spin coming from Pence so disingenuous. The religious bigots in Indiana thought they could get away with this and they are stunned by the backlash. Now, they are going to lie about their intent.

Protected class? I wanna be a protected class. I want a Humbolt class. I didn't realize that gays should be a protected class, and I see nothing in the Indiana text that discriminates. I think it's largely in your mind, which I might add seems suspect of some kind of discrimination itself. Where's all the tolerance I've heard so much about? Why, it's no where to be seen.
 
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Don't bring facts into this discussion, humbolt. It just confuses people who have their minds made up. :shock:


werd.gif



sk033115dAPR20150331104607.jpg
 
Yeah. Pence is discriminating because he's conservative. Obama wasn't because he's a liberal. Huge difference. Huge.

No, Pence is discriminating because it was his intent to allow discrimination and also the intent of the Indiana legislature. Obama's intent wasn't. Illinois already had laws that make LGBT a protected class. Indiana doesn't. When this was discussed as part of the legislative process, it was pointed out that the legislation in Indiana would allow discrimination against LGBTs unless the law was changed to prevent it. The legislature chose not to change it. So, yes, huge difference.
 
Last edited:
The crux of the matter:

A Perfect Storm of Hysteria and Legal Ignorance - Rich Lowry, NRO

". . . The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate — Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people — say, a baker or a florist — using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad.

Why? It’s a large, diverse country, with many people of differing faiths and different points of view. More specifically, the country has an enormous wedding industry not known for its hostility to gays. The burgeoning institution of gay marriage will surely survive the occasional florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding for religious reasons.
As a practical matter, such a dissenting florist doesn’t make a difference; the affected couple might be offended but can take its business elsewhere. But for the Left, it’s the principle of the thing. For all its talk of diversity, it demands unanimity on this question — individual conscience be damned. So it isn’t bothered when religious wedding vendors are sued or harassed under anti-discrimination laws for their nonparticipation in ceremonies they morally oppose.
It’s not clear that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts will shield these kinds of business people (they haven’t, to this point). It might be that more specific exemptions are necessary. But the mere possibility that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might protect a baker opposed to gay marriage is enough to create a furious, unhinged reaction.
Yes, there is intolerance afoot in the debate over Indiana, but it’s not on the part of Indianans."

Even this is overstated IMHO. There has been no recorded case of denial of service to LGBT in Indiana.
 
My position should be obvious to you after the last few days, but since you asked, my position is that everyone has the right to decide on who they will commence in commerce with. It is my position based on the facts of the situation that refusing someone service does not harm them, but simply does not give them the assistance that the goods or services that were refused could have provided. It is my position that the government has no constitutional authority to demand people provide each other their labor, provide someone service, give up their property for the benefit of someone else, associate with someone against their will, or to force them into contracts with other citizens.
Sorry large number of posts to read.

Does not harm them?
Creates an underclass of citizens does it not?
Could you please define no harm?
 
Sorry large number of posts to read.

Does not harm them?
Creates an underclass of citizens does it not?

Depends on how bad it is in society as a whole, but individually, no.

Could you please define no harm?

Harm: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.

There is nothing about being refused service that causes physical or mental damage or any sort of injury at all. Sure, someone might die if they don't get medical care, and sure, someone might starve if they don't get food, but that was not caused by someone refusing to provide a service, but in the case of medical care, some sort of ailment, and in the case of food, hunger.

Yes, the position is insensitive, and yes, it is rather cold, but it is the truth, and in this case that is all that matters.
 
Yes, he would need to change the law because the lies were successful.

Dude....why don't you stop. Take a second...and stand back and look at what you are saying. Let's assume for a second that you are correct...that the "liars have won". What have they won? If the law didn't do what they claimed it did (their lies)...then a change in the law gets them nothing. They have won nothing. Right?

On the otherhand...if you are wrong about their lies.....then your statement "They have won" would have more meaning. Because they will have won something. If their attacks were truthful....then what they have won is a change in the law changing the law from being discriminatory.


So what is it? Why are you concerned about them "winning" if you really believe that what they have won is nothing? Its all about logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom