• 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

That is false. There is no community that discriminates based on religious beliefs. The rules and regulations for opening a business and getting a license to do so are the same for all who wish to do so.

Yes,and if a business owner does not want to do business that facilitates what he considers wrong behavior, then he is discriminated against by the government.

What's odd here is that my argument favors allowing private parties, including businesses, to discriminate based on their personal beliefs. The opposing argument favors allowing government to discriminate. The real evil is when government discriminates
 
Hiding behind religion to practice bigotry is a crock of chit. If they held their religious convictions so strongly they wouldn't be open. They would have to refuse service to all "sinners".

WHAT??????????????????????

Straight people sin?????????? Please....say it ain't true.
 
Ehhhh.... they are the elected representatives of the people - not the people.



I shouldn't think you need a law at all, but rather should repeal any current law that says otherwise, though the situation is going to differ from location to location.



I oppose the government violating an individual's property rights by dictating whom they must give custom to.

That is the opposite of what a government is supposed to do; a government is supposed to protect our natural human right to property.



A single person should not have to give custom to anyone, should not have to exchange goods or services or property with anyone. Should he choose to do in voluntary exchange with another, that is their business.

I don't profess to be a US Constitution expert, but doesn't the Commerce Clause give government the right to do just that - determine the laws and regulations under which intrastate and interstate commerce may be conducted?
 
That's why he served them all holy communion the night before they would all betray him, especially Peter and Judas....


Morality and the Bible are not a natural mix, puritanical interpretations did not arise until the middle ages when law and order broke down after the fall of the Roman empire....

The American Christian right is one of the last stubborn bastions against enlightenment....the man hung out with lepers and fed them, does anyone really think He would shun homosexuals?

Are you comparing lepers to homosexuals?
 
And as I said, he didn't facilitate their sin either. Moreover, He said he came to them because they were in need of being healed.

You can't be "healed" until you die. People still sinned after meeting Jesus.
 
Yes,and if a business owner does not want to do business that facilitates what he considers wrong behavior, then he is discriminated against by the government.

What's odd here is that my argument favors allowing private parties, including businesses, to discriminate based on their personal beliefs. The opposing argument favors allowing government to discriminate. The real evil is when government discriminates

False again. No government has special rules for religious owners of businesses that they do not have for non-religious owners of businesses. Discrimination, by definition, is the treatment of one party differently from another for no appreciable reason other than whom they are. No person is forced to open a business that sells to the public. Any person who chooses to open a business that sells to the public shall be entitled to do so provided they follow the rules and regulations established by the municipal entity in which they set up shop, period.

How about collecting sales tax? Should a business owner be free to refuse to collect sales tax on behalf of the municipality or state because they don't agree with it? Perhaps on religious grounds they disagree with some tax dollars going to support programs for gay people, Muslims, planned parenthood, etc. Should they be allowed to refuse to participate in that sin?
 
91424-004-18004705.jpg


Can I get a witness?

Asinine, in the extreme.
 
:lol:

His inaction enabled him. Enabling is helping. Nice try.

Using that logic, doing nothing about (___racism___) enables, and since enables is helping, helps racists... Just enter whatever issue into the blank: the poor, polluters, drug addition, terrorism, etc. Sweet logic!
 
:lol:

His inaction enabled him. Enabling is helping. Nice try.
Inaction is not facilitation. For example, two homosexuals can still get married even if a Christian photographer declines to photograph their wedding. But the photographer did not facilitate the wedding
 
Well, since government is the people in a community and they through their representatives determine the laws and regulations that govern that community, why do you favour a collectively enacted law that allows a private business to discriminate and yet oppose the community collectively, through their representatives, enacting a law to discriminate against a business? Do you feel that businesses have a higher level of rights and equality than a single person?

The idea that the U.S. Constitution as drafted by its Founders required that the government tolerate such practices is an alien interpretation that has nothing to do with the Founders' original intent. In Federalist No. 10, wrote about the benefits of a republican form of government. In part, such a government would have the authority to override factional interests that posed harm to the nation. He wrote, "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote." In short, the Founders envisioned that the Constitutional framework would provide relief from oppressive factional interests. This case falls squarely into the kind of issues that could be addressed in a constitutional fashion.
 
Yes,and if a business owner does not want to do business that facilitates what he considers wrong behavior, then he is discriminated against by the government.

What's odd here is that my argument favors allowing private parties, including businesses, to discriminate based on their personal beliefs. The opposing argument favors allowing government to discriminate. The real evil is when government discriminates

:rofl

Bigotry is bad, but not bad enough to do anything about, right?
 
I don't profess to be a US Constitution expert, but doesn't the Commerce Clause give government the right to do just that

That is the lie the big government types tell, to be sure.

The Commerce Clause is a catch-all for anything they want to expand the power of government.

Hell, the Supreme Court ruled in the 90s that not selling marijuana in California but growing it for personal use still fell under the damned Commerce Clause. You can't make **** this crazy up. Only Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas dissented.

Article I said:
The Congress shall have Power...

... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes

Achem - "among the several states."

The purpose of this specific text, per James Madison, was to prevent tolls and tariffs between individual states within the union.

The clause in its entirety gives Congress authority to ensure free trade within the nation itself and to have authority to impose duties on commerce with other nations.


It says absolutely nothing about compelling a business or individual within a given state to give custom to anyone.

And yet, for Congress to have that power, it would have to explicitly state EXACTLY that.
 
Last edited:
False again. No government has special rules for religious owners of businesses that they do not have for non-religious owners of businesses. Discrimination, by definition, is the treatment of one party differently from another for no appreciable reason other than whom they are. No person is forced to open a business that sells to the public. Any person who chooses to open a business that sells to the public shall be entitled to do so provided they follow the rules and regulations established by the municipal entity in which they set up shop, period.

How about collecting sales tax? Should a business owner be free to refuse to collect sales tax on behalf of the municipality or state because they don't agree with it? Perhaps on religious grounds they disagree with some tax dollars going to support programs for gay people, Muslims, planned parenthood, etc. Should they be allowed to refuse to participate in that sin?

That is exactly what they're doing. If a business owner declines to do business for certain events based on his personal beliefs, he is punished to the point of being forced out of business. That is a discrimination of sorts that some people find acceptable
 
Using that logic, doing nothing about (___racism___) enables, and since enables is helping, helps racists... Just enter whatever issue into the blank: the poor, polluters, drug addition, terrorism, etc. Sweet logic!

Now you know why many conservatives are often seen as narcissistic bigots.

Glad I could help.
 
Bigotry is bad, but not bad enough to do anything about, right?

The bigotry we see today is aimed at people of conscience, particularly religious conscience
 
Now you know why many conservatives are often seen as narcissistic bigots.

Glad I could help.

Only conservatives? Perhaps an example is in order....
 
Inaction is not facilitation. For example, two homosexuals can still get married even if a Christian photographer declines to photograph their wedding. But the photographer did not facilitate the wedding

Photographers don't facilitate weddings. They document them. It would be like the authors of the books of the bible refusing to do so because sins were documented in the books.
 
And if a governor decides to pass a bill allowing discrimination of whatever YOU are?

Then what?

Then I have to patronize businesses that don't discriminate against me. Problem solved

Granted, if you're in the majority it's a pretty toothless threat. If you're in the minority you can find yourself marginalized from society, business, investment...education, which creates a much larger problem for the minority in question.
 
Now you know why many conservatives are often seen as narcissistic bigots.

Glad I could help.

Let's look at the reality. A business owner tells a customer he does not sell products or offer services for same sex weddings. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. He makes no effort to stop the wedding, or interfere in the wedding or to punish the wedding participants.

On the other hand, the same sex couple sets out to punish the business owner by having the state force the owner to act against his wishes or pay fines and penalties even to the point of driving the owner out of business.

One party wants to control his own business based on his own beliefs. The same sex couple wants to harm the business owner based on their beliefs.

Her's a tip. If that same sex couple wants to harm someone because they don't agree with their beliefs and comply with their wishes, the same sex couple are the intolerant bigots
 
The bigotry we see today is aimed at people of conscience, particularly religious conscience

This made me laugh.

"People of conscience". Religious people have no more conscience than anyone else.
 
Only conservatives? Perhaps an example is in order....

Reagan ignoring AIDS until he absolutely couldn't anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom