• 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's all well and good, but that line between decent and not decent isn't always so clear. And we have all kinds of laws that really do nothing more than tell us to be decent - don't cheat people, kill them, public nuisance laws, don't sell tainted or poisonous products. We are discussing healthcare - there is in fact a law to require hospitals to treat people in the ER without regard to ability to pay. If Cruz gets his wish and ACA is repealed, how many will die for lack of access to health insurance? If it's 100, are we a decent people? 1,000? 100,000? 1 million? Those aren't easy lines to draw.

Like Sen. Cruz, I hope the Obamacare law is fully repealed. I have no idea if that would cause the death of anyone. And I don't see what any of that has to do with the fact that under the common law a person has no duty to help someone in distress, let alone with the subject of this thread.
 
...and religion, along with the other people who made their votes guided by age and religion. I'm sure you're also quite familiar with the LDS role in Prop 8?

LDS provided significant funding as I recall.
 
and of course that other tiny detail that there's nothing unconstitutional about the act.

Perhaps it's not unconstitutional, but it's certainly not ethical. It's discrimination and morally obscene just because some people do not fit everyone's ideal.
 
The government didn't fine the business (yet as that hearing has not been held), the storefront was closed because business fell off. Market forces at work.


>>>>

Then so be it.
 
Are you sure that's the case? Generally speaking, a single corporation holding a monopoly on hospital services in such a large area would not be legal under the Clayton Antitrust Act.

I was sure but your question made me wonder, so I looked. They are not-for-profit. If I understand that correctly, it means they have to abide by federal laws and cannot discriminate, yes? My bad for assuming Taylor. I looked for the nearest not-for-profit, assuming this group was.

They are known in the area as greedy buggers and are very aggressive with their collection tactics. Also, when hitting the ER, they have been known to tie up patients without insurance (which will now not be a thing) with a financial discussion before moving them on for treatment. Which lead me to believe they were for-profit. Should have done my homework. Tsk, tsk, on me.
 
Like Sen. Cruz, I hope the Obamacare law is fully repealed. I have no idea if that would cause the death of anyone. And I don't see what any of that has to do with the fact that under the common law a person has no duty to help someone in distress, let alone with the subject of this thread.

First of all, the subject of helping someone in distress isn't relevant to a thread about the bill Pence signed and the broader discussion about discrimination and RFRA. But you made a comment...

Second, it was your off topic comment that mentioned that we pride ourselves on "doing the right thing" and being "decent" as a people. Surely that extends beyond the most trivially obvious instance of saving a drowning person when doing do poses no risk to the rescuer. If not we've set a very low bar for ourselves. And as I said, the line between decent and not decent as a people isn't easily drawn.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it's not unconstitutional, but it's certainly not ethical. It's discrimination and morally obscene just because some people do not fit everyone's ideal.
Yes, and you're upset because these people do not fit your ideal. I mean, it would be great if everyone could respect each other's differences, but probably expecting way too much from both sides.
 
I was sure but your question made me wonder, so I looked. They are not-for-profit. If I understand that correctly, it means they have to abide by federal laws and cannot discriminate, yes? My bad for assuming Taylor. I looked for the nearest not-for-profit, assuming this group was.

They are known in the area as greedy buggers and are very aggressive with their collection tactics. Also, when hitting the ER, they have been known to tie up patients without insurance (which will now not be a thing) with a financial discussion before moving them on for treatment. Which lead me to believe they were for-profit. Should have done my homework. Tsk, tsk, on me.
I believe that even the vast majority of private hospitals must follow the federal law as a condition on their acceptance of federal funding. I'm sure it's only a scant few that resist putting their hands in that purse. It also follows that the type of discrimination hospitals tend to engage in has little to do with things like race or sex or sexual orientation, and a lot to do with whether or not a patient can pay them.
 
Yes, and you're upset because these people do not fit your ideal. I mean, it would be great if everyone could respect each other's differences, but probably expecting way too much from both sides.

Unfortunately, Mankind is imperfect. We are maturing, however, even though it looks at the time as if we're retrograding. A decade ago the thought of same sex marriages were unheard of and a couple of decades ago, most Gays were still in the closet. Our culture has come a long way with still much to learn.

Man is a byproduct of Nature and Mother Nature's children are diverse. Some of her children are black, brown; some pink, some yellow, while some are Gay, Lesbians, transexual, etc. These people must be allowed to live without persecution among us with the same equality. As long as they do not try to force their lifestyle on others, what's wrong with wishing them well. Humans are created equal even if some have different sexual appetites. I am against pedophilia, and priests who molest little altar boys. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's decision to sign into law a measure that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of "religious freedom" is wrong and an unhealthy move for our society. But things will change like they always do....given time.
 
They shove their lifestyle in the faces of too many Americans and it's coming back to bite their butts. When they were simply an oddity that you knew existed but, it didn't affect your day-to-day then no one hardly noticed or cared. You come out and demand everyone accept you or get sued or thrown in jail and people take offence.

I get what you are saying. I don't like gays flaunt their healthy bodies and nice clothes in my face. It makes me look bad.
 
Unfortunately, Mankind is imperfect. We are maturing, however, even though it looks at the time as if we're retrograding. A decade ago the thought of same sex marriages were unheard of and a couple of decades ago, most Gays were still in the closet. Our culture has come a long way with still much to learn.
I tend to view things quite differently. I don't see mankind moving forward and backward on some sort of developmental pathway. I see a culture that is constantly adapting to meet whatever natural or societal exigencies exist at the time. Cultures that do this well tend to fluorish, whereas those that do not are weakened or disappear altogether. What we judge to be "right" or "progress" is part of this as well, and certainly subject to change.
 
That's not the issue. The issue is why. If the photographer said he was already booked, there would be no problem. If the photographer says "I can't do it because Jesus wants me to marginalize people who are born like you.", that's were the issue is.
I don't recall anyone ever saying that, but if the photographer simply declines the business, that's liberty
 
What an utter waste of time and cash. There is no way this wont be challenged and no will it will be allowed to stand by the courts. Basically this yokel is wasting taxpayers cash to try and ginny up some political support. Shame the taxpayers will suffer due to this BS.

Not only that but there's plenty precedent to know how the courts will handle challenges. Cases where "RFRA" actually succeeds in allowing discrimination in cities/counties where it's already illegal and few and far between.

So to cater to bigot voters the governor is sacrificing a huge amount of industry. That mentality is exactly why the midwest is crumbling into the next bible belt
 
How do the businesses find out they are gay?

"A homosexual, an atheist, a vegan, and a crossfitter walk into a bar...I only know because they told everyone within two minutes."

Please, the kind of trash who push for these laws live in shanty towns where everyone knows everyone
 
Yes, exactly. The federal government's power to intrude on the rights of business owners in this area is very limited in scope. The only reason they have any power at all is because of some creative interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

and you know, the civil rights act

the south will never live down jim crow, and indiana will never live this down either
 
Nope, it "flew" this morning. Pence signed it into law several hours ago.

No it did not. Out of 20 states with these "RFRA" i can't even find a handful of cases where the laws were successfully upheld in court challenges. See, it turns out there is a compelling governmental interest to not allow license to discriminate laws. All the douchebag governor accomplished is to make his state hated and avoided
 
Just saw this thread, a good friend of mine who lives in Fairmount Indiana, has medical insurance and happens to be gay was just refused service this morning at a physicians office. In his own words. ****ing disgusting.

If he lives in one of the 12 counties that ban sexuality discrimination, tell him to sue. Even if not, he can sue, as the law is unconstitutional
 
Wow, I actually read this entire thread. 47 pages of it, no lie. Since my side won the debate, I will choose not to suffer you all with my opinions, but I would like to say that AGENTJ is so awesome! ;)

Who was it that scared him off? Henrin? Good work man! :)


Tim-
 
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.

Because the rural ****holes in the state want to force the 12 more enlightened counties to allow such discrimination. Where is the "states' rights" crowd now in calling for the rights of counties and cities to determine their own values?
 
Wow, I actually read this entire thread. 47 pages of it, no lie. Since my side won the debate, I will choose not to suffer you all with my opinions, but I would like to say that AGENTJ is so awesome! ;)

Who was it that scared him off? Henrin? Good work man! :)


Tim-

Yeah the side of hatred won, get real

Indiana will suffer for this, not just the gay citizens, and it will be much deserved
 
Yeah the side of hatred won, get real

Indiana will suffer for this, not just the gay citizens, and it will be much deserved

Sure it will.. Those that oppose true freedom and first amendment rights would boycott Indiana? Seems awfully counter-intuitive, no? Oh, maybe you mean gays will boycott Indiana, or those that sympathize with their plight? In that case, yeah, then the evil religious nutjobs will have won, essentially, correct? Isn't the goal here (Sticking to the narrative of course) for Indiana to rid themselves of all those pesky gays? ;)

Tim-
 
Sure it will.. Those that oppose true freedom and first amendment rights would boycott Indiana? Seems awfully counter-intuitive, no? Oh, maybe you mean gays will boycott Indiana, or those that sympathize with their plight? In that case, yeah, then the evil religious nutjobs will have won, essentially, correct? Isn't the goal here (Sticking to the narrative of course) for Indiana to rid themselves of all those pesky gays? ;)

Tim-

To "win" they would have to do so without losing in the near future the $50 million gamecon, the NCAA final four, that tech company with billions, tourist income, multi million dollar lawsuits over this unconstitutional law, masses of educated young residents who aren't gay etc. But their hopes to create an anti gay version of the "black codes" without any retribution are a complete fantasy

Take a look at the incredibly short list of "RFRA" cases that succeed and then try to convince me that this will offer ANY protection in those 12 counties that currently ban discrimination.

Believe me, gays who can afford it have been flocking out of the ghetto midwest for decades.
 
Based upon the comments you are responding to "theocracy" is a red herring. One does not have to have a religious reason to discriminate. An atheist can be just as much a homophobe, or racist, or whatever as a supposed Christian. Additionally, by what Belmonds, myself and others are calling for, even Christians could be and would be discriminated against.

No you're right, it just so happens that every time these laws are proposed, fundamentalist christian groups like the FRC are the main lobbying force. And no, christians are exempt because under federal law they are a "protected class" and since they're like 2/3 of the country, the odds of this happening are significantly smaller. The bill was passed entirely out of hatred of homosexuals, by religious zealots and even called "religious freedom act," making it a theocratic measure by definition
 
Hate is a great powerful tool. It unifies the GOP base. The GOP base hates gays more then they are willing to vote for their own interests. And that's exactly how the anti-gay Republican politicians like it.

This isn't 2004, although repubs are using the same damn hateful tactics. It will doom them in the general election, that is for sure. Haters like this governor, or ted cruz, have no chance of winning the non-bat**** vote
 
Back
Top Bottom