• 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

Why should your business benefit from the roads, sewer system, electricity grid, garbage pickup, etc. that a gay citizen paid taxes to provide his/her community if you're going to use that infrastructure to deny him/her access to your business? Should a gay citizen be able to decide, using your logic, that no religious bigots get to use the municipalities infrastructure to operate a business?

Well, what do you say to home owners that refuse to provide gay individuals entry into their home?
 
If you run a business that caters to the public, then you ****ing cater to the public. If you want to discriminate, then open a private club, collect membership dues then you can exclude all the gays, blacks and midgets that you want.

shouting at people in a profane way to do what you say is so convincing.
 
Then that doesn't speak very highly of many posters on this forum.

This Bill is pure hatred. Wrapped up as freedom for religious beliefs.
If someone buys into that, not my problem, they have the problem.
And the madness grows

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/us/california-initiative-would-kill-gay-people.html
LOS ANGELES — Even in a state known for its far-reaching and sometimes outlandish voter initiatives, the one proposed by a Huntington Beach lawyer seems stunning: the “Sodomite Suppression Act,” mandating, among other things, that any person who has sexual relations with someone of the same gender be “put to death by bullets to the head.”

It appears highly unlikely that the lawyer, Matthew G. McLaughlin, can collect the 365,880 signatures of registered voters — 5 percent of the total who voted for governor in the last election — needed to put the initiative on the ballot. Even if he does, it seems even more unlikely that it would ever pass in this state. And even if it did, opponents said, it would almost certainly be thrown out by a judge.
 
This sounds like another state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, although I didn't see that specified in the article. It's not clear how far states can expand the protection of the Free Exercise Clause beyond what the Supreme Court has held it protects. I don't see why it is not enough just to omit sexual orientation from the list of grounds on which discrimination by public accommodations is prohibited by the state law.
 
Well, what do you say to home owners that refuse to provide gay individuals entry into their home?

If the home owner is having an open house or running a bed and breakfast, you might have a point of comparison - otherwise, not so much.
 
If the home owner is having an open house or running a bed and breakfast, you might have a point of comparison - otherwise, not so much.

Why? They both use all the same services and they are both denying entry to gay individuals.
 
Why? They both use all the same services and they are both denying entry to gay individuals.

Your home is not a business operating under a business license issued by the municipality and governed by laws and regulations for the operation of that business. If, on the other hand, you list your home for sale and an agent has an open house, that becomes a business function governed by the municipality's laws and regulations and the real estate agent must abide by them - likewise, if you open and offer your home as a bed and breakfast, you must have a business license and as such you are governed by those rules and regulations.

I'm no aware of any municipality in the United States that requires you to have a business license to reside therein.
 
respecting individuals rights to maintain freedom to associate with who they wish to associate with is a good thing.

From African American to Chinese Americans, now Gays the hate fest continues under so called freedom to practice religion. Bogus beyond belief
No one forces anyone to go into a business. You have a business you are open to the public.

These arguments in favor of the bill are putting lipstick on a pig.
 
If you shine enough light on this issue, you can watch the cockroaches (class warfare advocates) scurry from the light with the simplest of questions:

“Can an individual discriminate against a gay business owner and not give him business?”

it really is that easy. there is no shortage of services being withheld, so no problem is in need of the meddlers to solve.
 
From African American to Chinese Americans, now Gays the hate fest continues under so called freedom to practice religion. Bogus beyond belief
No one forces anyone to go into a business. You have a business you are open to the public.

These arguments in favor of the bill are putting lipstick on a pig.

this isn't a religious issue at all. We have freedom to have really bad ideas, and to live by those really bad ideas.
 
From African American to Chinese Americans, now Gays the hate fest continues under so called freedom to practice religion. Bogus beyond belief
No one forces anyone to go into a business. You have a business you are open to the public.

These arguments in favor of the bill are putting lipstick on a pig.

You have a right to use your property as a business.
 
Well, what do you say to home owners that refuse to provide gay individuals entry into their home?

You're equating a private residence with a business open to the public. Apples and dump trucks comparison.
 
You're equating a private residence with a business open to the public. Apples and dump trucks comparison.

The only difference between the two is a license with terms set by the government. The government could easily apply the same terms to home ownership.
 
this isn't a religious issue at all. We have freedom to have really bad ideas, and to live by those really bad ideas.

Seriously???? A bill that allows discrimination, based on religious belief, isn't a religious issue??????

I witness that your bigotry is not much different then the ones you condemn

I should have known after this nugget of nonsense to stop reading what you post on this subject. :roll:
 
Which bad idea are you referring to?

it is a horrible business decision to discriminate against people that wish to pay you for the product or service you went into business to offer.
 
Seriously???? A bill that allows discrimination, based on religious belief, isn't a religious issue??????

no, it isn't. the bill protects people with a lack of a religious beliefs as well.
 
Seriously???? A bill that allows discrimination, based on religious belief, isn't a religious issue??????

The issue itself deals with property and association rights. Any religious rights involved in it are a side bar at best.
 
I don't need to be "convincing" It is what it is. Have a business that serves the public? Then serve the public.

better yes, serve anyone you wish to serve, but don't take public funds doing it.
 
this isn't a religious issue at all. We have freedom to have really bad ideas, and to live by those really bad ideas.
It is a religious issue. The original intent was to protect Native American religious practices (i.e. sacred burial grounds, smoking peyote, etc)
 
respecting individuals rights to maintain freedom to associate with who they wish to associate with is a good thing.

I agree and those rights already exist and are protected, this has nothing to do with them.
 
Back
Top Bottom