• 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

intolerance of intolerance, /brokenrecord till it sinks in

The whole state except for a few cities. The kind of places that are 98% white

I grew up on the indiana border and i'm well aware how damn right wing and impoverished the rural areas are. Even the mayor of indianapolis said he wants to make sure this new law doesn't reflect on his city, as it's the rural bigotry masked as "religious freedom" that is behind it

Funny how they do not care about the *freedom* of LGBT, not at all

Intolerance of intolerance doesn't seem like a logical attitude, but if you can rationalize it for yourself, go for it.

As I recall, much of Indiana borders rural areas, is your implication that anywhere with too many white people is automatically intolerant? It isn't clear to me that these places are that poor. From some data I searched for, it looks like most of the high poverty areas in Indiana are in cities: Bloomington, Muncie, Lafayette, etc: Indiana Poverty Rate by County.

Are you rationalizing your own intolerance with stereotypes?
 
Ok, so we're settled, in Indiana, it's ok to discriminate because democracy.

LOL!!! I was wondering if you would pick up on the fact that this law was passed because it has the support of the public in that state. Good work!

And again, it's not a matter of it being "OK". Being "OK" is a matter of opinion. No one person gets to deem what is "officially OK". Instead, we have a political and legal system that operates according to certain rules. As it stands today, the law has gained the support it needs to be passed. It probably will be challenged in court, and may be overturned. Or it may withstand such a challenge. I really don't know.

That's how our system works. So right now in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate.

As far as whether or not I'm "OK" with any law (and we've talked about more than one here), I'm pretty sure my standards for "OK" are different than yours.
 
So only your bigotry is OK, got it. Can you identify any "shanty town" areas in Indiana so I can do some more research on this phenomenon?

Being intolerant of something that is harmful to society (ie bigotry) is not bigotry

Being intolerant of something that is not harmful to society (ie homsexuality) is bigotry
 
1.)You support anti-discrimination laws
2.) so clearly you support forcing your will on business owners.
3.) Is it wrong of me to ask you why you support anti-discrimination laws?

1.) of course because i believe in protecting my fellow Americans rights
2.) false since there is no force. I mean we know you keep claiming this lie but theres never any proof lol
3.) of course not when we are talking about REAL laws and not the retarded ones you make up in your head, also i answered this in #1 :D
 
...and

there is no rational argument presented to support any of the above.

I agree you havent posted one rational, honest, logical or factual thing to prove otherwise . . . not one. . .
if you disagree I directly challenge you right now to do so . . .please do so in your next post
your claim fails and facts win again
 
1.)The Christian bakers refused, and now are out of business. Reality mugs you again.
2.)See #1
3.) See #1
4.) No, you can't say no. See #1.
5.)Your facts aren't facts, you just think they are.

1.) cause and effect, facts and reality mug you. WHat you claim happened and what REALLY happened are two different things. Man you make this easy.
the baker didnt simply refuse business they broke the law . . . OOOOOPS!!!
thank you for further proving your claims wrong lol
2.) yes i agree see #1 where you are factually proven wrong . . again lol
3.) yes i agree see #1
4.) Yes you can say no, facts already prove that, repeating you lie will never be taken seriously by anybody honest, educated and objective. It will simply be mocked for the lie and dishoensty it is
5.) weird except i proved it and what proves your claims . . . . . .NOTTA . . NOTHING . . ZILCH . .
lets go over the facts again

You can factually say no and that is fine, this fact will never change
if you disagree give it your best shot, teach me a lesson and please provide ONE shred of proof you cant say no . . one fact that supports you thanks . . you wont be able too

your post fails and facts win again
 
Simpleχity;1064466747 said:
The original intent of RFRA was to protect NA religious practices. The 1993 federal bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY), easily passed in both houses of a majority Democratic Congress, and was signed into law by President Clinton. I highly doubt the 1993 legislators and Clinton ever envisioned this legislation as an enabling tool for discrimination and prejudice against the LGBT community.

i agree 100%

"original intent" was to protect something even though that didnt need protecting and was already protected . . .
now new bills are written in a shadow form under the false cloak of that and are even worse with people simply trying to legalize thier bigotry and discrimination. As a christian myself i find it disgusting because anybody honest and educated sees its not about religion. These bills dont benefit me or my country one bit.
 
Being intolerant of something that is harmful to society (ie bigotry) is not bigotry

Being intolerant of something that is not harmful to society (ie homsexuality) is bigotry

So do you endorse the idea that rather than disagreement, it is OK to refer to people as "trash" who live in "shanty towns"? Sorry, but I think that is just as bad.
 
So do you endorse the idea that rather than disagreement, it is OK to refer to people as "trash" who live in "shanty towns"? Sorry, but I think that is just as bad.

I believe bigotry, like racism, gets tossed around pretty freely on sites like this. In my view, bigotry is simply the irrational hatred of an identifiable group of people for who they are collectively and not their actions or who they are individually. In that regard, claiming as Chromium does that those who wish to exercise freedom of religion in this context are "trash who live in shanty towns" is both bigoted against the religious but also, in a backhanded way, those who live in shanty towns. There are many exceptionally fine people who populate both religion and shanty towns and to call either or both collectively trash is bigotry.
 
Guess we have to recap again since facts keep wining.
I keep asking for proof and facts to prove the list wrong below and NOBODY can do it . . .hmmmm I wonder why?

lets recap the facts

there are no laws forcing or compelling anybody to do business with gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no right to service
there is no force to accept gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no force to serve gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc

example.

I make widgets and I make the best damn widgets money can buy. Thornton Melon is one of my financiers !

I make them big, small, fat and skinny. I make them in any color and out of many materials.

Business is great and its booming

A person (pick thier gender, race, sexual orientation and religion etc.) walks in and they want 200K widgets by april 5th.
lets go with Black, female, Muslim, lesbian, republican who works at an abortion clinic
I deny her business because Im booked and cant possible make her deadline, my stock is tight as it is and she'll have to get her widgets from somewhere else so i say no
perfectly legal and i wasn't forced to do business with her in any way because she was gay or anything else and I said NO because there is no force to say yes. No laws broken nor were there any rights infringed

another person (pick thier gender, race, sexual orientation and religion) walks in and wants 500 widgets by april 4th
lets go with white, male, Christian, conservative, who is a KKK member and he told me he wants the widgets to set on fire in the shape of "no -n-words welcome" at his next rally. I refuse because i am again busy and i would never sell my widgets to be used for firewood.
perfectly legal and i wasn't forced to do business with hem in any way because he was christian or anything else and i said NO because there is no force to say yes. No laws were broken nor were there any rights infringed.

there are no laws forcing or compelling anybody to do business with gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no right to service
there is no force to accept gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc
there is no force to serve gays or genders, races, sexual orientations, religions etc

lets add these below since people falsely and laughably claimed otherwise

there is no force to say yes
religious rights are not infringed
right to associate is not infringed
right to a contract is not infringed

feel free to provide any facts that prove otherwise, not opinions but facts. So far nobody has been able to do it and its been a huge losing battle on thier end.

Facts win again
 
Legalized discrimination is a hallmark of fascism.

Is it? Says who? But its not legalization, its decriminalization. Its not a state mandate or endorsement of discrimination, but allowing everyone the freedom to make their own decisions. That is a hallmark of liberty, not fascism. If I don't like you and don't want to associate with you or do business with you, why should that make me a criminal? The truth is, you and I have the right to discriminate and do it all day every day.
 
Explain how freedom of association and freedom of trade is fascist.

those arent the topic nor what he called facist since neither deal with OP.
 
So do you endorse the idea that rather than disagreement, it is OK to refer to people as "trash" who live in "shanty towns"?

It depends. If the people being referred to are trash who live in shanty towns, then it's OK to refer to them that way. I do not know enough about Indiana to determine if that characterization is true or not. If it's not true, then the characterization is bigoted.
 
Intolerance of intolerance doesn't seem like a logical attitude, but if you can rationalize it for yourself, go for it.

As I recall, much of Indiana borders rural areas, is your implication that anywhere with too many white people is automatically intolerant? It isn't clear to me that these places are that poor. From some data I searched for, it looks like most of the high poverty areas in Indiana are in cities: Bloomington, Muncie, Lafayette, etc: Indiana Poverty Rate by County.

Are you rationalizing your own intolerance with stereotypes?

it means they struck first, and i'm giving them what they deserve. It's not going to be logical to someone who thinks this law is perfectly fine and we should do nothing in response

98% white is obviously by design, and minorities do not feel welcome in small towns period. Hell, no one wants to live there, except for inbreeders. That's why they're small. There is little to no exposure to openly gay people, so it's no surprise that these areas are among the most bigoted and most supported this law. My implication is that lack of diversity breeds intolerance

First, all the "yes" votes were from repubs. Talk about the party of hate. Now where are the constituents who voted them in? Yep, away from the cities! District 1-3 (near Gary) all voted Dem, as well District 8/10 (South Bend), 25 (Muncie), 30-36 (Indy)...you get the idea. I could not find a single Dem in the legislature who wasn't elected by city dwellers, and not a single Repub not elected by a hodgepodge of villages. The only case even close to straddling the line was District 48 (Evansville), practically southern

Here's a list of some of the shanty towns i referred to: Indiana Very Small Towns and Villages (fewer than 1000 residents) - Real Estate, Housing, Schools, Residents, Crime, Pollution, Demographics and More

Now really, try gleaning anything useful from the "poverty rate" of a town of 287 residents. Wealth is also useless because there's nowhere to spend within 30 miles! But just pay a visit and you'll see what i meant - 4 churches, confederate flags, no businesses of any kind, trailers with single mom and her 3 kids, and everyone is white. Oh but put up a pride flag and see how long till it gets confiscated and you get mugged

Your chart is outdated and based on county, and the calculation for poverty derived from self reporting. Obviously a city like indianapolis is only part of the county it's in and some shanty towns are in counties that also have towns of respectable size and even (gasp) minorities living there. In Hancock County there is a town of 21,000 but also the one square mile trailer trash (99% white) collective of "Wilkinson" (pop 449). So your data is heavily skewed
 
Last edited:
So do you endorse the idea that rather than disagreement, it is OK to refer to people as "trash" who live in "shanty towns"? Sorry, but I think that is just as bad.

i was calling bigots trash, and most of them happen to live in shanty towns. You can stop taking me out of context any time
 
Is it? Says who? But its not legalization, its decriminalization. Its not a state mandate or endorsement of discrimination, but allowing everyone the freedom to make their own decisions. That is a hallmark of liberty, not fascism. If I don't like you and don't want to associate with you or do business with you, why should that make me a criminal? The truth is, you and I have the right to discriminate and do it all day every day.

Clearly you oppose the civil rights act then on the grounds it banned discrimination, and you want the various groups protected by employment and housing laws (race, religion, gender, pregnancy status etc) all removed

Or not?
 
Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com



Wow. WTF Indiana????
You trying to out-religious the bible-belt states?
Is Indiana becoming Mississippi2.0 or something?

This is going to be interesting to watch.

The gay movement overshot and has made a role-back very likely. And I am afraid that as partial as I am to gays and their right to act in any way they feel they want to (just like anybody else) I feel that I cannot support them in their demands, where they want to rough-ride over the rights of others to conscientiously object.

The triumphalist, nagging way the movement and some of the crasser members have been doing so is unappetizing and the others should understand, that they will loose out because of this behavior and the fact, that other people have feelings too.
 
Clearly you oppose the civil rights act then on the grounds it banned discrimination, and you want the various groups protected by employment and housing laws (race, religion, gender, pregnancy status etc) all removed

Or not?
In principle, yes.
 
I believe bigotry, like racism, gets tossed around pretty freely on sites like this. In my view, bigotry is simply the irrational hatred of an identifiable group of people for who they are collectively and not their actions or who they are individually. In that regard, claiming as Chromium does that those who wish to exercise freedom of religion in this context are "trash who live in shanty towns" is both bigoted against the religious but also, in a backhanded way, those who live in shanty towns. There are many exceptionally fine people who populate both religion and shanty towns and to call either or both collectively trash is bigotry.

My definitive feeling is that often the bigots are not the ones being called such.
 
1.)The gay movement overshot and has made a role-back very likely.
2.) And I am afraid that as partial as I am to gays and their right to act in any way they feel they want to (just like anybody else) I feel that I cannot support them in their demands
3.) where they want to rough-ride over the rights of others to conscientiously object.
4.)The triumphalist, nagging way the movement and some of the crasser members have been doing so is unappetizing and the others should understand, that they will loose out because of this behavior and the fact, that other people have feelings too.

1A) what is the gay movement? lol
1B) what was overshot?
1C.) what will be rolled back?
2A.) NOBODY has the right to act anyway they want
2B.) what are thier "demands"?
3.) I dont know any gays that want that in real life nor do anti-discrimination laws do that, nor does equal rights
4.) the fact is equal rights are winning and bigotry is losing and people that have hurt feelings by that dont matter. Feelings are meaningless to equal rights, laws and or the constitution.
 
1A) what is the gay movement? lol
1B) what was overshot?
1C.) what will be rolled back?
2A.) NOBODY has the right to act anyway they want
2B.) what are thier "demands"?
3.) I dont know any gays that want that in real life nor do anti-discrimination laws do that, nor does equal rights
4.) the fact is equal rights are winning and bigotry is losing and people that have hurt feelings by that dont matter. Feelings are meaningless to equal rights, laws and or the constitution.

Is 'role-back' anything like rollback I wonder!? :mrgreen:

Inquiring minds want to know!
 
1A) what is the gay movement? lol
1B) what was overshot?
1C.) what will be rolled back?
2A.) NOBODY has the right to act anyway they want
2B.) what are thier "demands"?
3.) I dont know any gays that want that in real life nor do anti-discrimination laws do that, nor does equal rights
4.) the fact is equal rights are winning and bigotry is losing and people that have hurt feelings by that dont matter. Feelings are meaningless to equal rights, laws and or the constitution.

I would have expected that from you. No surprise their. But nota bene: You will be one of those responsible.
 
Back
Top Bottom