• 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



(Apologies for the incredibly stupid title of this video. But everything in it applies here.)


:kissass

Folks like you obviously don't get that all have inalienable rights. But along with that comes religious freedom and government does not have the right to force another against his moral conscience yet we see people attempting to quite often. And stooping to demeaning and disgracing the true suffrage of a race of people for equality and comparing that to denial of service over a wedding cake. Well it's quite .....disgusting. But here we are!
 
91424-004-18004705.jpg


Can I get a witness?
Where in the bible does it say whites can lynch blacks or that being black is somehow a sin?
 
Religious people are discriminated against. Fat people are discriminated against. Smokers are discriminated against. Some discriminate against country western singers. Some discriminate against those who gamble and partake in alcohol. Others discriminate against Southern folks and others against Northern folks. There are laws that protect gays from discrimination against their inalienable rights just like any other citizen. Gays have not been denied the use of a water fountain. Gays have never been sold as merchandise to the highest bidder because of their gayness. Gays have never been denied a seat at a lunch counter or restaurant because of their gayness. But black folks were and it is outrageous there are those who will use the suffering of race inequality as even beginning to match what the lgbt community claims in discrimination acts. Denying someone a wedding cake because of religious convictions doesn't even belong on the same page of those who were beaten and treated like second class citizens because of their color. Shameful.

Now long before LGBT, there was something called freedom of religion guaranteeing every individual their right to religious expression and moral conscience. Some folks find gay marriage a sin yet they have just as much right in the public square as anyone else and have the right to conduct their life in commerce without persecution for their beliefs.

They might not have ever been denied a seat at a lunch counter, but they are prohibited from jobs, fired from other jobs, until the SC said HELL NO! no were subject to arrest for consensual sexual acts, making their intimate relationships a CRIME, etc. In the last couple of decades, a lot of those problems have greatly diminished, and in some areas aren't really problems at all, but that's only because of decades of work by people to enforce their rights and to change public opinion.

And I think a lot of the misunderstanding, if that's the right word, is most people just have no idea what gay people went through in this country for almost its entire existence. I happen to have a decent understanding because my brother is gay, is in his 50s, and came out well before public opinion has effectively flipped on the subject, and I know what he experienced, and why he moved from Tennessee to California. Point is while it is true that they weren't systematically discriminated against to the same extent as blacks, but that's an irrelevant observation. It's like concluding that unless Jews or some other group are suffering as much as Jews did in Nazi Germany, then we need not worry because the Jews in Germany had it worse.
 
I see many libertarians continue their long-standing tradition of being best friends to bigots looking for an excuse to close groups of people out of civil society.
 
They might not have ever been denied a seat at a lunch counter, but they are prohibited from jobs, fired from other jobs, until the SC said HELL NO! no were subject to arrest for consensual sexual acts, making their intimate relationships a CRIME, etc. In the last couple of decades, a lot of those problems have greatly diminished, and in some areas aren't really problems at all, but that's only because of decades of work by people to enforce their rights and to change public opinion.

And I think a lot of the misunderstanding, if that's the right word, is most people just have no idea what gay people went through in this country for almost its entire existence. I happen to have a decent understanding because my brother is gay, is in his 50s, and came out well before public opinion has effectively flipped on the subject, and I know what he experienced, and why he moved from Tennessee to California. Point is while it is true that they weren't systematically discriminated against to the same extent as blacks, but that's an irrelevant observation. It's like concluding that unless Jews or some other group are suffering as much as Jews did in Nazi Germany, then we need not worry because the Jews in Germany had it worse.

We have laws in place that do not tolerate discrimination over sexual orientation. If someone finds they are being discriminated against they have the right to pursue it in the courts. Did blacks have that right when they were looking for equality? NO But it doesn't stop some from trying to use what a race of people truly suffered for a century to use their suffering as equal to them when it is shameful to even make the comparison.

Edit- until the last decade gay relations were truly seen as "against nature" in our society. I would never tolerate having a gay person mistreated and denied basic rights all should be entitled. But I also don't see it right to force those to go against their moral conscience just to make a living. There should be enough tolerance for all.
 
Last edited:
Where in the bible does it say whites can lynch blacks or that being black is somehow a sin?

I couldn't find one particular speech right off, but it was common for supporters of slavery to use religion to justify it. Here's part of the Texas statement in support of abolition:
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
 
I couldn't find one particular speech right off, but it was common for supporters of slavery to use religion to justify it. Here's part of the Texas statement in support of abolition:
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

So in otherwords there is nothing in the bible supporting the lynching of black people or that being another race is a sin.
 
Over twenty million in manpower and funding, yes. What a lot of people who cite the "black people passed prop 8!" trope don't understand is that when you take the age and religion factors away then, well, there just really isn't much motivation left for opposing same sex marriage.

Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8 | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times





And then just to further drive the point home...





So if you're old and religious, you're probably voting for prop 8, not bad money is on you voting for prop 8. Add "conservative" into it and forget about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/CAExitPollGayMarriage.pdf

Analysis of California Proposition 8 Exit Poll Data

$180,000 in a statewide vote in California is inconsequential decimal dust.
The point about black voters for Prop 8 is not that they were demographically different from others who voted as they did, but that only on this issue did they vote with old, white, conservative church-goers.
 
nope im full aware of both those case and the FACTS and REALITY of them. Not the dishonest conspiracy theory versions, the facts of them. in fact both those cases support my statements. SO again in fact I dont know one christian in real life affected NEGATIVELY by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws, they protect us. Based on Christianity ZERO Christians are affected.
facts win again
Then what do you cal it if Christians are assessed fines and find themselves locked in legal battles over being allowed to decline certain clients?
 
everyone i know around here is outraged, so don't be so quick to paint the whole state with a broad brush. stickers are going up everywhere making it clear that everyone is welcome. Pence is the worst governor Indiana has had in my lifetime. unfortunately a majority voted for these dip****s or didn't vote; i think turnout was like twenty five percent. hopefully, more people will get off of their asses in 2016 and vote these ****ers out for ruining Indiana's reputation.

boycotts will do more harm than good, too. major employers and small businesses lobbied against this stupid bill, but they were ignored. they don't deserve to be boycotted, and people who don't even support this don't deserve to lose their jobs because of it.

what can you do that will help? write, email and call those ****ers at the statehouse until the ****ing phone lines melt. and don't stop when the media stops covering it. keep it up. eventually, they'll have to cave.

The Indiana RFRA is patterned after the federal RFRA of 1993, originally put forward by (then) Representative Chuck Schumer of New York. Many states have similar laws. And you are wrong about turnout in Pence's election.
 
Not necessarily. Again you are engaging in circular reasoning. Your argument is that in order to be "tolerant" you have to be willing to be tolerant of people who are intolerant.

That is just a silly proposition. In many cases tolerance requires speaking out against those who reach intolerance.

In order to be tolerant, you have to be tolerant of people who hold a different perspective than you. Intolerance toward people you consider intolerant is indeed intolerance itself
 
everyone i know around here is outraged, so don't be so quick to paint the whole state with a broad brush. stickers are going up everywhere making it clear that everyone is welcome. Pence is the worst governor Indiana has had in my lifetime. unfortunately a majority voted for these dip****s or didn't vote; i think turnout was like twenty five percent. hopefully, more people will get off of their asses in 2016 and vote these ****ers out for ruining Indiana's reputation.

boycotts will do more harm than good, too. major employers and small businesses lobbied against this stupid bill, but they were ignored. they don't deserve to be boycotted, and people who don't even support this don't deserve to lose their jobs because of it.

what can you do that will help? write, email and call those ****ers at the statehouse until the ****ing phone lines melt. and don't stop when the media stops covering it. keep it up. eventually, they'll have to cave.

2012 Indiana gubernatorial election [SUP][11][/SUP]
PartyCandidateVotes%±%
RepublicanMike Pence / Sue Ellspermann1,264,87749.67%-8.35%
DemocraticJohn R. Gregg / Vi Simpson1,183,21346.46%+6.52%
LibertarianRupert Boneham / Brad Klopfenstein101,8683.95%+1.83%
Write-inDonnie Harold Harris / George Fish210%
Margin of victory81,6643.20%-14.61%
Turnout2,549,15257.81%-2.08%
Republican holdSwing
 
They pretty much funded the entire measure....and the worst part about it is that they lied about it and engaged in all kind of deception to make it appear that they weren't behind it (because they would lose their non-profit/church tax status).

According to Cardinal they spent $180,000. That's nothing in a state like California. You guys need to get your stories straight.
 
The Indiana RFRA is patterned after the federal RFRA of 1993, originally put forward by (then) Representative Chuck Schumer of New York. Many states have similar laws. And you are wrong about turnout in Pence's election.

Very true sponsored by Chucky Schumer and signed into law by Bill Clinton. And yes, I think Indiana is the 30th or 31st state to shore up their laws to protect religious freedoms.
 
The Indiana RFRA is patterned after the federal RFRA of 1993, originally put forward by (then) Representative Chuck Schumer of New York. Many states have similar laws. And you are wrong about turnout in Pence's election.

many states had Jim Crow laws, too. and the same folks supported them.

i was wrong about 2012. it looks like 56% turned out, but not all of them voted for Mike Pence. this law is an absolute embarrassment for the state.
 
many states had Jim Crow laws, too. and the same folks supported them.

i was wrong about 2012. it looks like 56% turned out, but not all of them voted for Mike Pence. this law is an absolute embarrassment for the state.

At the federal level it's a Democrat measure sponsored by Democrat legislators and signed by a Democrat President. Similar laws have been passed by many states at the recommendation of the Supreme Court. Your faux outrage is purely a political pose.
 
We have laws in place that do not tolerate discrimination over sexual orientation. If someone finds they are being discriminated against they have the right to pursue it in the courts. Did blacks have that right when they were looking for equality? NO But it doesn't stop some from trying to use what a race of people truly suffered for a century to use their suffering as equal to them when it is shameful to even make the comparison.

I'm a little bit lost - many state laws don't in fact protect sexual orientation and it's not covered by the CRA. Also, the law Pence signed carves out a "religious" permission slip to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is why we're discussing this topic this week.

And as I said, I don't consider the comparison "shameful" because I'm pretty aware of the discrimination gays faced in this country for most of its history. It's different, but was incredibly damaging to those affected.
 
I'm a little bit lost - many state laws don't in fact protect sexual orientation and it's not covered by the CRA. Also, the law Pence signed carves out a "religious" permission slip to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is why we're discussing this topic this week.

And as I said, I don't consider the comparison "shameful" because I'm pretty aware of the discrimination gays faced in this country for most of its history. It's different, but was incredibly damaging to those affected.

The law does not carve out a permission slip for discrimination. That is political spin.
 
many states had Jim Crow laws, too. and the same folks supported them.

i was wrong about 2012. it looks like 56% turned out, but not all of them voted for Mike Pence. this law is an absolute embarrassment for the state.

How so? There is nothing in it that is discriminating. It only re-instates what the federal government made claim to a couple of decades ago.

After Obamacare and their major college Notre Dame having countless law proceedings against the federal government that was forcing them to support certain things that was in violation of their faith. Like a lot of other states, they had everything from shelters, food banks, and other programs caring for shutins etc. closing down because they could not justify compromising their faith. The biggest losers were the communities that depend on the charities.

Then the attacks on people of faith who could not in moral conscience participate in a marriage they see as a sin.

Pence was either the 30th governor or the 31st that has done the same thing to shore up protection for the rights of the religious which have no particular political base.

I'm sure at this moment there are more on their knees thanking God for Pence then there are those who appose him.
 
At the federal level it's a Democrat measure sponsored by Democrat legislators and signed by a Democrat President. Similar laws have been passed by many states at the recommendation of the Supreme Court. Your faux outrage is purely a political pose.

That's disengenuous. The intent wasn't to give private businesses a cover to discriminate against LGBT. I can't imagine anyone at the time contemplating that a business open to the public and providing service to gays posed a substantial burden on an INDIVIDUAL's free exercise of religion.
 
The law does not carve out a permission slip for discrimination. That is political spin.

What would you call denying service to someone based on sexual orientation except discrimination?

And the justification for discriminating is in fact religion, if it falls under the RFRA.
 
I'm a little bit lost - many state laws don't in fact protect sexual orientation and it's not covered by the CRA. Also, the law Pence signed carves out a "religious" permission slip to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is why we're discussing this topic this week.

And as I said, I don't consider the comparison "shameful" because I'm pretty aware of the discrimination gays faced in this country for most of its history. It's different, but was incredibly damaging to those affected.

We are talking about individual moral codes. All people have certain inalienable rights. How you have sex isn't one of them but freedom of religion and the right to moral conscience is.
 
At the federal level it's a Democrat measure sponsored by Democrat legislators and signed by a Democrat President. Similar laws have been passed by many states at the recommendation of the Supreme Court. Your faux outrage is purely a political pose.


this will be my last response to you, Jack, because i don't care about your opinion concerning any topic, to tell you the truth.

i don't support this **** at any level or from any party. this **** directly affects me because i live here. my state has been made into a joke, and i'm angry about it. they've passed a bill that allows businesses to kick out gay customers, which is just flat out ****ing stupid, as well as mean spirited. we don't do that in a modern first world country. a lot of people i know are really upset about it, and so am i. also, there is a boycott being organized, and we almost lost a fifty million dollar convention because of it. Indianapolis is scrambling to distance itself from the stupid ****ers in the statehouse. it was clear from the get go that this was going to be a mess if they passed it, but they did it anyway. this bill was passed as revenge for the recent legalization of gay marriage in Indiana.

the last thing that this state needs is a ****ing boycott. it's hard enough to make a living here already. those who want to boycott should be burning up the statehouse phone lines instead. eventually, the black eye will be enough to get the law repealed, but by then, the damage will be done.

you can get in the last response of our exchange. goodbye.
 
That's disengenuous. The intent wasn't to give private businesses a cover to discriminate against LGBT. I can't imagine anyone at the time contemplating that a business open to the public and providing service to gays posed a substantial burden on an INDIVIDUAL's free exercise of religion.

Not at all disingenuous. The law is the law, and its authors are responsible and accountable.
 
What would you call denying service to someone based on sexual orientation except discrimination?

And the justification for discriminating is in fact religion, if it falls under the RFRA.

Let's just see how it plays out. The law protects individuals from being compelled to perform acts contrary to their consciences. Seems laudable to me -- and constitutionally mandated, btw.
 
Back
Top Bottom