• 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

Be it what you are, would you not be a tad bit angry if your favorite restaurant decided they would no longer serve you because of what/who you are?

I could not care less, in most situations, if someone did not want my business.
 
It is new.....Indiana didn't have the RFRA. So they joined other states that had it to.

Do you own a religious business? If you do.....it looks like this law will give you the same equal consideration when it comes to civil matters.

Dunno, but here is what a legal scholar's analysis reveals.

So the most controversial aspect of the Indiana law was endorsed by the Holder Justice Department. [Update: I should stress that at the time, DOJ limited the applicability of RFRA to “religious organizations,” such as Wheaton College. But following Hobby Lobby this position is no longer tenable.]

There here we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA. In contrast, Mississippi’s RFRA, which only requires a “burden,” not a “substantial” one, deviates significantly from the federal statute.

I should stress–and this point was totally lost in the Indiana debate–that RFRA does not provide immunity. It only allows a defendant to raise a defense, which a finder of fact must consider, like any other defense that can be raised under Title VII or the ADA. RFRA is *not* a blank check to discriminate.
Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

And who is this guy?

Josh is an Assistant Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. Josh is the author of the critically acclaimed Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare.
Josh was selected by Forbes Magazine for the “30 Under 30″ in Law and Policy.Josh has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of executive action on immigration. Josh is the founder and President of the Harlan Institute, the founder of FantasySCOTUS, the Internet’s Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League, and blogs at JoshBlackman.com. Josh leads the cutting edge of legal analytics as Director of Judicial Research at LexPredict. Josh is the author of over two dozen law review articles, and his commentary has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, L.A. Times, and other national publications.
Josh clerked for the Honorable Danny J. Boggs on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and for the Honorable Kim R. Gibson on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Josh is a graduate of the George Mason University School of Law.
About Josh | Josh Blackman's Blog

I'll go with what Josh here says, in that it's more similar to the federal statute than not.
 
Before you begin attacking my opinion would you please answer the question I posed early: Would you not be the least bit angry if you were denied access/service based on what or who you are?

Why would it matter if I was angry? What basis is anger for anything?
 
Why would it matter if I was angry? What basis is anger for anything?
Would you not feel offended, would you not feel the need for change? Or would you allow your rights as a human being to be taken from you?
 
Would you not feel offended, would you not feel the need for change?

Why would it matter if I'm offended? What grounds do I have to do anything about it?
 
Before you begin attacking my opinion would you please answer the question I posed early: Would you not be the least bit angry if you were denied access/service based on what or who you are?



Should this Christian man be angry?
 
Why would it matter if I'm offended? What grounds do I have to do anything about it?
What do you mean "what grounds"? As a human being you have the right to stand up for the rights you were given at birth. Would you really stand by and have those rights taken away from you without a fight?
 
What do you mean "what grounds"? As a human being you have the right to stand up for the rights you were given at birth. Would you really stand by and have those rights taken away from you without a fight?

What rights are being taken away from me? The business decided they didn't want to trade with me, which is entirely in their rights to do.
 
"...in most situations..." Could you expand on what you mean by this?

Sure. I support the common law requirement for innkeepers and common carriers to serve all takers. I would very strongly object to being denied a motel room in a remote area on a very cold winter's night, for example, and so would anyone else.
 
Both discriminate, against gays-correct?

no, all the bills (3 you made reference to) do not allow the same avenue/possibility of discrimination. In fact per the links posted here by others the Illinois one specifically mentioned that this doesn't trump illegal discrimination against civil rights and included sexual orientation and transgender
 
Do you wanna show where he spoke about prostitution? And yet...

go forth...and sin no more.

Now..we CAN absolutely show where his apostles talked about homosexuality...right?

Sin no more. Thats the part you always forget.

Why are you trying to equate homosexuality with prostitution. A close analogy would be adultry with prostitution. Funny thing is...most of the bigots have no problem serving adulterers.

Along the same lines....most of these businesses have no problem serving any plethora of "sinners". If you have an issue with people who commit "sins" then going into business is probably a bad idea. Oh wait....I get it....they only don't want to serve "those" "sinners".
 


Should this Christian man be angry?

If this man runs a specifically christian bakery, than in my opinion he has every right to deny service to people who want a cake that promotes something he does not agree with, just as the people who run the pro-same sex marriage bakeries have the right to deny him the cake he was asking for.
 
Sure. I support the common law requirement for innkeepers and common carriers to serve all takers. I would very strongly object to being denied a motel room in a remote area on a very cold winter's night, for example, and so would anyone else.
But its okay for homosexuals to be denied the same service, correct?
 
This law is not comparable to other states that have similar laws.
Discrimination is discrimination under the guise of Religious rights.

Exactly, and now pence or penance want's to redefine the law, what's there to define? Notice how the GOP wagons are circling around the IN law? I hope they're inclusive of Islam while they're circling the Christian wagons. :lol:
 
This analysis from a law professor, skilled in the law, seems to differ from your assessment.

Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

And who is this guy?

About Josh | Josh Blackman's Blog

Between what you say and what Josh here says, thanks, but I'll go with Josh.
Must be cherry picking season in your neck of the woods.
From the Joshman.
Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog
Does the federal RFRA also provide a defense? It depends on what Circuit you’re in. Shruti Chaganti writes in the Virginia Law Review about this split.

The circuits are split as to whether RFRA can be claimed as a defense in citizen suits
—suits solely between private citizens in which the government is not a party. This split is based on an ambiguity in the text: whether the phrase “and obtain appropriate relief against a government” is meant to limit the set of cases in which a “claim or defense” may be raised in a judicial proceeding, or whether the phrase simply signifies an additional right upon which a litigant may rely.

Some circuits (CA2, CA9, CA8, CADC) hold that RFRA can be raised as a defense:

Some circuits (hereinafter “defense circuits”) have allowed RFRA to provide a defense in citizen suits, finding the statute’s language and purpose sufficiently broad to create a defense regardless of the parties to the suit.7 Under this reading, an unambiguous version of the text would be modified to say, “A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and may obtain appropriate relief (including against a government).”8 This reading makes clear that relief against a government is merely an additional right—a subset of the more generally obtainable relief under RFRA. Thus, “claim or defense in a judicial proceeding” is freestanding and not limited by the “obtain relief” phrasing.

In Indiana gays have no legal protections from discrimination as they do in other States. Rather Cro magnoesue IMHO.

Answering five questions about Indiana’s new discrimination law - The Washington Post

Maybe. Indiana law on discrimination creates certain protected classes. You can’t discriminate against someone because of their race, their religion, their gender, and so on. But sexual orientation isn’t on that list, so it’s already legal to discriminate against gay people in much of the state. Some cities and counties in the state have passed their own local anti-discrimination laws, and it’s really these that are where the question comes in. Whether this law overrules them comes down to how courts would interpret the legislation’s language.
 
1.) its not a joining since theirs is different
2.) the law already gives me the same equal consideration when it comes to civil mattters


Well then coming up with one. As several states aren't the same.

Pence again put it in the perspective it is.....today.




Pence on RFRA: "This Law Does Not Give Anyone A License To Discriminate".....


“This legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the Hoosier State,” he continued. “But clearly, there’s been misunderstanding and confusion and mischaracterization of this law. And I come before you today to say how we’re going to address that.”

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was about religious liberty, not about discrimination,” he said. “As I said last week, had this law been about legalizing discrimination I would have vetoed it. This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana does not give anyone the right to deny services to anyone.” “I don’t believe for a minute that it was the intention of the general assembly to create a license to discriminate or a right to deny services to gays, lesbians, or anyone else," he added. “But I can appreciate that’s become the perception, not just here in Indiana, but all across this country and we need to confront that."

“I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone,” he said, urging state lawmakers to act as soon as possible. “ We want to make it clear that Indiana is open for business. We want to make it clear that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it’s a way of life.”.....snip~

Pence on RFRA: "This Law Does Not Give Anyone A License To Discriminate" - Daniel Doherty
 
what would happen if a Muslim or Jewish bakery refused to make a cake for a gay wedding? one thing I know for certain: the liberal "outrage"(remember when it took EFFORT to be outraged? those were the days) would not be nearly as hyperbolic. The gays have a problem with the EVIL CHRISTIANS only, for reasons only a certified psychiatrist could explain.
 
About a dozen CEO's have come out and blasted this law, yet conservatives who say the private sector is always right and the government is always wrong are now saying Indiana is right and the CEO's are wrong.

Hate is a strong motivator.
 
Last edited:
Must be cherry picking season in your neck of the woods.
From the Joshman.
Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog


In Indiana gays have no legal protections from discrimination as they do in other States. Rather Cro magnoesue IMHO.

Answering five questions about Indiana’s new discrimination law - The Washington Post

Based on this:
Maybe. Indiana law on discrimination creates certain protected classes. You can’t discriminate against someone because of their race, their religion, their gender, and so on. But sexual orientation isn’t on that list, so it’s already legal to discriminate against gay people in much of the state. Some cities and counties in the state have passed their own local anti-discrimination laws, and it’s really these that are where the question comes in. Whether this law overrules them comes down to how courts would interpret the legislation’s language.

The way forward is clear, pass legislation that makes LGBT a protected class in Indiana. Not torpedo someone's legitimate legislation on the bases of it doing something that it doesn't.
 
The way forward is clear, pass legislation that makes LGBT a protected class in Indiana.
What they should have done from the jump. But they stupidly went ahead anyway while never anticipating a national backlash.
 
Based on this:


The way forward is clear, pass legislation that makes LGBT a protected class in Indiana. Not torpedo someone's legitimate legislation on the bases of it doing something that it doesn't.
Protected classes flies in the face of equality under the law.
 
Like Catholics and other Christians in name only....

We're talking about major eternal damnation tenets.

I am not a christian in name. I practice my beliefs and yes i screw up. I also know I will be forgiven.
Preaching about the poor and forgiveness are/ were at the top of the teaching oh Jesus.
So i will be judged on my sins in the end.
And to tell the truth, I ain't worried.
 
Back
Top Bottom