• 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

Being simply "an opposite sex couple" vice "a same sex couple", or "heterosexual" rather than "homosexual", is not a factor. If you are referring to other things, such as their personal health history, then you are the one miscontruing things. If you are basing treatment, including giving abortion or birth control drugs to a patient based on either their relative genders or their sexuality, that is illegal. It must be based on other factors to withhold treatment to a patient, any treatment, besides "well they're homosexual/heterosexual" or "they're a same sex couple/opposite sex couple".

The point was that discrimination is perfectly ethical and legal, excepting certain legal regulations. Science isn't based in lefty dogma, even if many laws are.
 
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.

Our constitution creates a federal government, not a national one. State legislatures do not need to get the approval of "the American people" for the laws they make. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause is not relevant to Indiana's RFRA. There are no significant differences between the Indiana statute and the federal RFRA that was the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case. In fact the Indiana law applies to for-profit corporations, just as the Court interpreted the federal RFRA to do in Hobby Lobby.
 
Good news!
yes.gif


Arkansas has seen how the left and the LameStream has played with this issue and now their Senate just passed an RFRA. Which their Governor says he will sign the Bill. Get it to him Pronto-like.

That should cause the left to go off on another tangent.....huh?
evil6.gif

Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Obama all voted for RFRA, its curious that its a problem now.

My view-its a distraction while the Obama presidency continues to fail.
 
You could make that point for some Christian religions. Most congregations would only draw the line, where participation is involved. You probably think that is a fine line and would be right. It is often a close call, but the difference here is quite obvious.

I think it is. Beyond that this law only protects the business from being sued-thats all it does. I think thats reasonable.

Whats amusing to me is minorities (who tend to vote democrat) overwhelmingly are against gay marriage. Its going to be interesting to see the left juggle this fact.
 
The ACLU generally does NOT shop for causes. The way it works is that people file complaints with the ACLU. The only argument that you can make that the ACLU "Shops for causes" is that the ACLU does not respond to every complaint that they receive. It would be impossible. We had a board that would review the complaints once a month and we would decide how to respond to them and which ones we would take up. It generally was not based on any particular political view but rather which causes we believed had merit and that we could prevail on. Perhaps on a "national level" you may be correct, I am not sure. But on a state level at the ACLU we were not concerned about appellate courts, let alone the Supreme Court. We were primarily concerned with the state courts and whether we could prevail on behalf of the client.

Not only do they not respond-because they dont want to put the resources into cases/jurisdictions where its not going to have an impact-but they actually LOOK for cases where the opposite might be true.

Whats amusing to me is this is common knowledge. Frankly it standard practice in activist circles.
 
Our constitution creates a federal government, not a national one. State legislatures do not need to get the approval of "the American people" for the laws they make. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause is not relevant to Indiana's RFRA. There are no significant differences between the Indiana statute and the federal RFRA that was the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case. In fact the Indiana law applies to for-profit corporations, just as the Court interpreted the federal RFRA to do in Hobby Lobby.

There's where you are wrong. Read the statutes. I posted a link yesterday that laid out the very key differences. You might want to take a look.

Here is the link again: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/
 
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.

It's simple enough. Your assertion, which is the basic talking point for conservatives, is the bill doesn't allow for discrimination, and that is indeed the history of the law. It hasn't (to this point) been anything like a blank check to claim a religious exemption to a general law. Fair enough.

But the Governor of Indiana was asked six times if private businesses could discriminate in Indiana and six times said, paraphrasing, "No Comment."

Maybe the point is it's always been legal to discriminate against LGBT in Indiana, so the law made no substantive change to acts already allowed except in a few jurisdictions in the state. So perhaps the big change is people can put a religious sheen on their acts of bigotry? Not sure. If so of course he can't say THAT, but he did say that he has no intention of supporting legislation that would protect LGBT in public accommodations.

But what's funny is right wingers are telling gays there's nothing to worry about. But the Governor goes on national TV and SIX TIMES refuses to confirm that message. Proudly anti-SSM/gay supporters of the bill sold it as a way to protect Christians from teh gays, and of course they now oppose any "clarification" of the bill that would protect LGBT. Those supporters were invited to positions of honor at the bill signing, and Pence votes with them 100% of the time. Is there any wonder why people ARE worried? All they did was listen to Pence and the anti-SSM supporters of the bill who tell us the purpose of the bill is to allow for at least some discrimination against teh gays and who now oppose "clarifying" the bill to make any protections for LGBT explicit.
 
Not only do they not respond-because they dont want to put the resources into cases/jurisdictions where its not going to have an impact-but they actually LOOK for cases where the opposite might be true.

Whats amusing to me is this is common knowledge. Frankly it standard practice in activist circles.

I would agree with that...but it is not the over-riding concern in my experience. The #1 criteria for whether we took up a complaint was whether the person had a righteous claim and was likely to prevail. Obviously...if the case could have a broader impact, that was another factor that encouraged us to accept the case. If it were something that the only impact would be on the individual, then the ACLU was probably not the best organization to bring the claim forward as we had limited resources and had a duty to those who donated to make the best use of the money.
 
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.

So if the person ordering the cake for the gay wedding was straight, there would be no discrimination.

No. The relative sexes of the people involved in the event was the reason for the refusal, their presumed sexuality (many laws actually include presumed sexuality as protected from discrimination too). Just as if the mother of the bride ordered the cake for her daughter's wedding, since her daughter was not in the state but returning to the state for the wedding (the same as I did). Mom is making arrangements and when she goes to pick out the cake, she shows a picture to the person of her daughter and her daughter's husband to be, who is black while the woman and her daughter are white. The baker then tells her he can't provide a cake for her wedding because his religion objects to interracial marriages/relationships (some still do) believing they are sinful. That is still illegal discrimination, despite the fact that it isn't against the actual person buying the cake.
 
The point was that discrimination is perfectly ethical and legal, excepting certain legal regulations. Science isn't based in lefty dogma, even if many laws are.

I've said that already. Certain types of discrimination are not legal, including discrimination against people for their sexuality in many states.
 
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!

Lolz Im reminded of an incident a few years back-the city of LA decided it was going to boycott Arizona over a law it had passed. LA gets much of its electrical power from AZ. The AZ power company actually contacted the Mayors office and asked them if they wanted to discontinue its electrical from the company-and the Mayor said no. :lol:
 
There's where you are wrong. Read the statutes. I posted a link yesterday that laid out the very key differences. You might want to take a look.

I have read both statutes, and there are no significant differences between them. You are trying to peddle baloney, because you disrespect the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion that the federal and state RFRA's are meant to protect.
 
I have read both statutes, and there are no significant differences between them. You are trying to peddle baloney, because you disrespect the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion that the federal and state RFRA's are meant to protect.

then you have a reading comprehension issue...because the differences are very clear. It would probably help you to look at the link. Its laid out in pretty elementary fashion.
 
I think it is. Beyond that this law only protects the business from being sued-thats all it does. I think thats reasonable.

Whats amusing to me is minorities (who tend to vote democrat) overwhelmingly are against gay marriage. Its going to be interesting to see the left juggle this fact.

It depends on the poll and is changing quickly:

Polling Tracks Growing and Increasingly Diverse Support for the Freedom to Marry | Freedom to Marry

African Americans: A national Gallup poll conducted November 26-29, 2012 found 53% of African Americans thought marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized officially and should have the same rights as straight married couples.

Hispanics: A Quinnipiac Polling Institute poll conducted February 27-March 4, 2013 showed 63% of Hispanic voters support same-sex marriage.

That's a pro-SSM site, so I assume they cherry picked the polls but the point is public opinion has basically flipped in just a few years, and support for SSM among minorities is changing a bit slower, but has already reached at least near neutral status. Even young evangelicals support SSM in most polls I've seen.
 
It depends on the poll and is changing quickly:

Polling Tracks Growing and Increasingly Diverse Support for the Freedom to Marry | Freedom to Marry



That's a pro-SSM site, so I assume they cherry picked the polls but the point is public opinion has basically flipped in just a few years, and support for SSM among minorities is changing a bit slower, but has already reached at least near neutral status. Even young evangelicals support SSM in most polls I've seen.

Im not denying views are changing, in fact the real dichotomy here is between generations, but overall SSM has less support amongst minority groups. Its one reason why proposition 8 passed here in CA. Lefties were butthurt-but instead of "blaming" minorities for this, they decided it was safer to attack Mormons. :lol:
 
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.



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.

No. Forcing a person to actually be involved in a same sex marriage would be similar to forcing them to be in the military. This is like a conscientious objector taking it a step further and saying they shouldn't have to pay taxes because their tax money is going, at least in part, to paying for our country to kill people in wars. After all, their tax dollars are supporting those wars without them being able to determine where their specific tax money goes.
 
Im not denying views are changing, in fact the real dichotomy here is between generations, but overall SSM has less support amongst minority groups. Its one reason why proposition 8 passed here in CA. Lefties were butthurt-but instead of "blaming" minorities for this, they decided it was safer to attack Mormons. :lol:

Considering that Mormons funded the proposition and the incredibly deceptive propoganda campaign...the criticism of Mormons was and is valid. Sorry.

You talk in another post about "people outside of the state can pound sand"....LOL....you do realize that almost all of the prop 8 funding came from outside of California, right?
 
I live in a small town. One bakery.

Not another one for 30 miles.

What is the point?

And 30 miles is nothing, right next door in these days of awesome individual transportation and mobility.
 
I've said that already. Certain types of discrimination are not legal, including discrimination against people for their sexuality in many states.

Indeed and perfectly legal in most states. Including Indiana.
 
Im not denying views are changing, in fact the real dichotomy here is between generations, but overall SSM has less support amongst minority groups. Its one reason why proposition 8 passed here in CA. Lefties were butthurt-but instead of "blaming" minorities for this, they decided it was safer to attack Mormons. :lol:

California has already been discussed, but it's clear the generational divide is the biggest, followed by religion.

The real statistic IMO is how many of us have a friend or family member we know is gay.

Americans with a gay or lesbian friend rose from 22 percent in 1993 to 65 percent today, Cox said.

:peace
 
Indeed and perfectly legal in most states. Including Indiana.

Actually, it depends. There could still be some provisions against a doctor refusing to give a couple of the opposite sex abortifacient drugs and giving them to a same sex couple. This could easily be seen as a breach of medical ethics. It would be similar to refusing to give birth control to a married woman, but giving them to a single woman.
 
Back
Top Bottom