• 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

Nope, the objection is to the people involved in that event. They have no objection to the actual event by itself. They sell wedding cakes. In fact, the cake wasn't even being used at an actual wedding, but rather after the fact, in celebration of the union.
Nope, the objection is to the activity. They did not refuse to make the cake because the person was gay. They refused to make a cake for an ACTIVTY that they found objectionable. For all they knew, the person ordering the cake was straight. So the customer wasn't refused service based upon their particular protected status.

It depends on whether or not you provide those services to others but refuse to certain groups based on classifications of those people protected by the law.

For example, you cannot agree to provide a cake for a "pot legalization" party/rally for everyone except Mormons, because your beliefs go against contributing to other people breaking what you believe to be their religious tenets/restrictions. You couldn't agree to sell a cake for a Republican candidate to anyone except gay Republicans, at least not in places that include sexual orientation/sexuality as protected class. You can't refuse to provide services to a Planned Parenthood party/event, unless it included a certain percentage of black people.

The bakers all provided wedding cakes. They were refusing service based on the people involved in the event, not the actual event.
So if the person ordering the cake for the gay wedding was straight, there would be no discrimination.
 
Obviously....you still have your blinders on. I can't help you if you refuse to even see the most basic things. Sorry dude.

And I can't help you, since you won't listen to basic legal logic. Take care.
 
Here is a list of States with Religious Freedom Restoration Acts...

Religious Freedom Restoration Act perils | Professor Marci A. Hamilton | States


AZ, FL, IL, LA, SC, TX standard state RFRA
AL, CT would have deleted or deletes “substantial” from substantial burden
RI, NM, MO removed “substantial burden” and replaced with restrict
ID, KS, KY, OK, PA, TN, VA adds to government’s burden: clear and convincing evidence
MS expands to include suits between private parties
MS applies to businesses
MS works against homosexuals or same-sex couples


Didn't the governor of Connecticut just ban travel to IA? But wait...

Connecticut gov imposes travel ban over Indiana

Thay have the same law! LOL!

Libs, you have a lot of States you can't got to now. You better get this sorted out!
 
Why does the law need to be changed then?

SCOTUS declared that the federal law narrowly pre-empted State and Local authorities when it attempted to limit their actions. It is therefore incumbent upon states to pass the same or similar language if they wish to ensure their citizens rights remain protected.

If your side is telling the truth....there is no need for changes or any other kind of "clarification"

:shrug: legally there isn't. Politically there is, due to the hyperbolic hysteria going on. Hopefully then blood pressures will come down, people will pull their skirts off their heads, folks will take an actual rational look at what it means to apply a strict scrutiny standard, and the self-aware liberals will feel a bit embarrassed about the whole thing, while the majority will simply either pretend it never happened, or refuse to look at the material.
 
Here is a list of States with Religious Freedom Restoration Acts...

Religious Freedom Restoration Act perils | Professor Marci A. Hamilton | States


AZ, FL, IL, LA, SC, TX standard state RFRA
AL, CT would have deleted or deletes “substantial” from substantial burden
RI, NM, MO removed “substantial burden” and replaced with restrict
ID, KS, KY, OK, PA, TN, VA adds to government’s burden: clear and convincing evidence
MS expands to include suits between private parties
MS applies to businesses
MS works against homosexuals or same-sex couples


Didn't the governor of Connecticut just ban travel to IA? But wait...

Connecticut gov imposes travel ban over Indiana

Thay have the same law! LOL!

Libs, you have a lot of States you can't got to now. You better get this sorted out!

Not.the.same.law.

Gosh, this gets tiring to have to repeat to people who keep popping in, thinking they are saying something that hasn't been discussed about 1,000 times now.
 
Here is a list of States with Religious Freedom Restoration Acts...

Religious Freedom Restoration Act perils | Professor Marci A. Hamilton | States


AZ, FL, IL, LA, SC, TX standard state RFRA
AL, CT would have deleted or deletes “substantial” from substantial burden
RI, NM, MO removed “substantial burden” and replaced with restrict
ID, KS, KY, OK, PA, TN, VA adds to government’s burden: clear and convincing evidence
MS expands to include suits between private parties
MS applies to businesses
MS works against homosexuals or same-sex couples


Didn't the governor of Connecticut just ban travel to IA? But wait...

Connecticut gov imposes travel ban over Indiana

Thay have the same law! LOL!

Libs, you have a lot of States you can't got to now. You better get this sorted out!

:mad:


You Quit Thinking RIGHT NOW!
 
Literally. The. Same. Law. With. Minor. Edits. As. Delineated.
Good morning.
Are there not major differences between the Fed RFRA and State laws? And not all edits are minor.
From what I have seen there is.
 
Not.the.same.law.

Gosh, this gets tiring to have to repeat to people who keep popping in, thinking they are saying something that hasn't been discussed about 1,000 times now.

According to the Indy Star, the 3 ways it different than others are actually pretty benign.

* Adding for-profit companies is in line with the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision
* The "likely to be burdened" is for injunctions only
* non-government party cases is for civil suits, which still need to be argued before a judge.

In all ways, these additions don't equate to allowing discrimination anymore than the Federal law, or the other 30 States that have the law or case law to support it.
 
No.
...
Important distinctions.

Feel free to lay them out.


What I've seen thus far:

1. The Federal version was about minorities

No, it protects the religious freedoms of all Americans. Your inalienable rights are not reduced because of your identity.​


2. The Federal Version wasn't about Christians and Gays

Which is irrelevant, given that the category of "Americans" includes "Christians and Gays"​


3. The Federal Version didn't apply to private businesses

Actually it didn't say one way or the other on whether or not it did, however, four federal courts and the Obama Administration have all found and argued that it does.​




So..... lay it out for us.
 
Last edited:
Conscientious objector has an actual definition, and it has to do with refusal to bear arms in a military conflict due to their beliefs (doesn't have to be religious based, at least not here in the US). It is not simply someone who objects on the basis of religious beliefs.

Conscientious objector | Define Conscientious objector at Dictionary.com

And I've never had any issue with conscientious objectors, but that is a whole different topic.

Actually it is germane to this issue. It has been recognized (at least since the 19th century) that to force a person to act, or directly contribute to, what that person considers to be a deeply immoral act, such as fighting in a war, is wrong. Apparently, some believe that while a person may opt out of fighting for his country, he/she cannot be allowed to opt out of making a particular cupcake for a gay marriage.

Really? There is no 'compelling state interest' in universal conscription for the defense of a nation in war, BUT there is in universal conscription of bakers and cup-cakes?

This issue has become absurd. This is not Little Rock circa 1950, and lunatic hair pulling over public accommodations is WAY out of proportion to real discrimination.

If you are referring the photographer, the "state" did not put her out of business, as you claim. She chose to do something else, I'm assuming, since I can't find anything about her or her business besides the case. It may be that other forces put her out of business or her fight against the ruling cost her too much (although most of those lawyers defending rights will work either pro bono or are paid by a fund of donations). She was only required to pay about $7000 to the other woman/couple for their lawyer, and to agree not to discriminate. If she couldn't agree to that, which is a basic agreement when it comes to actually operating a business, a basic law, then she chose to be out of business. The state did not force her.

The state did force her to either violate her religious beliefs and actively support gay marriage OR give up some or all of her business (such as giving up wedding photography in order to avoid another fine).

I don't support conscription for war, let alone conscription for wedding cupcakes.
 
Last edited:
The law didn't have time to come into effect. The American people wouldn't stand for it.

Please tell us what specific part of the Constitution this alleged authority of "the American people" to determine what laws a state may enact is based on. If the Indiana legislature chose to make a law requiring dog owners to have their pets wear diapers in all public places, whether "the American people" approved of that law's intrusion on the freedom of Indiana dog owners would not matter one iota.
 
SCOTUS declared that the federal law narrowly pre-empted State and Local authorities when it attempted to limit their actions. It is therefore incumbent upon states to pass the same or similar language if they wish to ensure their citizens rights remain protected.



:shrug: legally there isn't. Politically there is, due to the hyperbolic hysteria going on. Hopefully then blood pressures will come down, people will pull their skirts off their heads, folks will take an actual rational look at what it means to apply a strict scrutiny standard, and the self-aware liberals will feel a bit embarrassed about the whole thing, while the majority will simply either pretend it never happened, or refuse to look at the material.

Sorry....but frankly that doesn't make any sense. Why did Pence refuse to answer the question 6 TIMES...if the law didn't do exactly what the critics have claimed? Why would the law have to be changed if the law didn't allow for what the critics have claimed.

By your post....Mike Pence is either a liar or a complete idiot. Which do you think he is?
 
Sorry....but frankly that doesn't make any sense. Why did Pence refuse to answer the question 6 TIMES...if the law didn't do exactly what the critics have claimed? Why would the law have to be changed if the law didn't allow for what the critics have claimed.

...I answered this question already. See that second section?
 
Please tell us what specific part of the Constitution this alleged authority of "the American people" to determine what laws a state may enact is based on. If the Indiana legislature chose to make a law requiring dog owners to have their pets wear diapers in all public places, whether "the American people" approved of that law's intrusion on the freedom of Indiana dog owners would not matter one iota.

If you don't know the answer....I suggest that you take a conlaw course. There is a little something in the Constitution called "Equal protection" and the 14th Amendment. You might want to read them sometime.
 
...I answered this question already. See that second section?

No you didn't. That was just rhetoric. Why did Pence refuse to answer a simple yes/no question 6 times if the law didn't do what the critics claimed?

Is Pence a liar or an idiot?
 
No you didn't. That was just rhetoric.

:doh Yeah. Dismissing an actual answer that someone gives you as "just rhetoric" isn't actually responding, DD. It's just demonstrating an inability to process new information. There isn't any legal need to rewrite the bill or alter it in any way. This is a political move to get the idiots to calm down and go away.

Why did Pence refuse to answer a simple yes/no question 6 times if the law didn't do what the critics claimed?

:shrug: i have no idea, having no idea what you are referencing. But that is a different question than the one I was answering, and it is thus a bit of a strawman for you to attempt to conflate the two.
 
You spent time arguing that your question (as part of a larger discussion) was about Indiana. Now that I've pointed out that your question said nothing about a specific state, you've moved on to saying it's about a state other than California. Well, alright. I won't bother asking you "Which is it?" because you don't seem to know. More importantly, your question - once again - said nothing about what states were excluded or included. En tout cas, The pattern remains the same in other states with sizeable liberal populations:

Illinois | Lambda Legal
Maine | Lambda Legal
Vermont | Lambda Legal
New York | Lambda Legal
Massachusetts | Lambda Legal
Oregon | Lambda Legal
Washington | Lambda Legal
Hawaii | Lambda Legal
Rhode Island | Lambda Legal
Delaware | Lambda Legal
New Jersey | Lambda Legal
Iowa | Lambda Legal (I included this one because it's voted Democratic in 6 out of the last 7 fed. elections; however, it's not essential to my case)
Maryland | Lambda Legal
Minnesota | Lambda Legal
Colorado | Lambda Legal

Remember, you asked how liberals would deal with your hypothetical. Not how liberals in Indiana, or anywhere except California would deal with your hypothetical. I answered accordingly. However, those links only cover workplace discrimination. This one covers non-discrimination laws as they relate to public accomodations:

https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

Every single once I've mentioned is included. My answer remains true in 14 other examples of liberal states where people can't be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Is there any liberal state you'd like to specifically touch on? Texas, maybe? :lol:



Is this the part where you rant about the left because I ignored your rant on Obama? Oh okay, cool. :cool: It doesn't change the fact that you asked a question that would be easily answered if you knew a bit about laws, views, and cases concerning discrimination in the most liberal state in the contiguous union. Pointing out that it's the same pattern in other liberal states? Now you just look uninformed about what goes on in other states as well as California. However, it's fun to watch you do the shuffle.

Listen close, Hatuey.

Go back and read my posts in this thread again. The scope of my comments includes potential situations where anti-gay marriage supporters are being discriminated against, and how the ACLU, etc might go about selecting a case.

Essentially you are having a discussion with yourself here. I recommend you read before you post.
 
:doh Yeah. Dismissing an actual answer that someone gives you as "just rhetoric" isn't actually responding, DD. It's just demonstrating an inability to process new information. There isn't any legal need to rewrite the bill or alter it in any way. This is a political move to get the idiots to calm down and go away.



:shrug: i have no idea, having no idea what you are referencing. But that is a different question than the one I was answering, and it is thus a bit of a strawman for you to attempt to conflate the two.
 
Not.the.same.law.

Gosh, this gets tiring to have to repeat to people who keep popping in, thinking they are saying something that hasn't been discussed about 1,000 times now.

You are going to have to do better than snarky remarks and some jerky. presentation. of. words. The website I linked to shows the insignificant differences, and the irony that Connecticut's law is actually tougher than Indiana's, while the governor is banning travel to IA, LOL!

Refresh my memory, didn't Clinton sign that fedral law? Oh, yes, he did. And made a point to get the press there and speak about it's significance and how it's not just another bill to be signed quietly in the oval office. Chuck Shumer, proudly declaring his support, and I'm sure every little lemming followed behind.


Man, the left... this would be comedy gold if you guys weren't so dangerous. Whoa, no travel to Indiana!
 
This has explained time and time again in this thread. So for the last time.

The Fed and Illinois laws were narrowly written as to protect the rights of minorities against the Fed and State government. Indiana's law is a broad, poorly-written blank check so private individuals can undermine the rights of others.

Also it allows the State of Indiana to supersede local ordinances that protects minorities.
 
Back
Top Bottom