• 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

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

Inquiring minds want to know!

I must admit, that was quite good. ;)
 
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.

What's the name of the physician? Shouldn't it be made public? And did the physician tell your friend that he was refusing to treat him because he's gay? Was it a scheduled appointment?
 
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!!!

Refusing to serve protected groups = broke the law = a forced 'yes' = not possible / practical to say no
As I've been saying all along. But you keep denying, saying there's a choice here.
There's really not. The only choice allowed, the only choice that's acceptable, is 'yes', by the force of the government gun.

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

Sure, sure. Kinda getting used to your baseless claim that you are operating on a factual basis. It's little more than opinion and follow the push agenda talking points / narrative.
 
Is 'role-back' anything like rollback I wonder!? :mrgreen:

Inquiring minds want to know!

LOL i did notice that and laugh

BUT, but when a person like myself (who is usually muiti-tasking while here) also makes some HORRIFIC typing, spelling and grammar mistakes I wasnt going to poke fun lol
 
Last edited:
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

Clearly you embrace the idea of fighting fire with fire, or is that out of context?

Even when you defend yourself, you are bigoted: "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" (bolding by me).

Using Google Maps, this doesn't look like a shanty to me, it looks like a quiet small town. Here is a house on the main street: Google Maps view of Wilkinson IN

I don't have a problem with your position, I have a serious problem with your methods.
 
What's the name of the physician? Shouldn't it be made public? And did the physician tell your friend that he was refusing to treat him because he's gay? Was it a scheduled appointment?

What was the treatment for? Though a lot of my friends and family members are gay, I see no reason to force anybody to associate with them, if they do not want to. One exception is emergency help. But otherwise all the guy or girl need do is walk a block to the next MD or baker.
 
I would have expected that from you. No surprise their. But nota bene: You will be one of those responsible.

translation: you cant answer the questions or back up your statements. thanks
thats what i thought. WHen you are ready to stop dodging let me know.
 
Well, all I can say is that we have a differing view of what is a personal, private right and what is a responsibility in a society where licenses are issued to operate a business. I have no problem with whatever freedom of association you care to enforce for yourself on your own time and in your own personal life. However, you do not get to carry that over to determining which clients you'll sell your wares to. You can determine what wares you'll sell or not sell on religious grounds, but you cannot discriminate about who shall be able to buy those wares once you decide what you will sell.

Actually, in this country, you can decide all day long who you will sell your wares to. You can decide you don't want to sell your wares to bikers, hippies, cigarette smokers, brunettes, people with brown eyes, people who smell bad, people who love cats, and so on.

What you can't do is decide you don't want to sell your wares to the protected classes. You can decline service to or an engagement of commerce with any gay person you want to. You just can't say you're doing it because the person is gay.
 
LOL i did notice that and laugh

BUT but when a person like myself (who isusually muiti-tasking while here) also makes some HORRIFIC typing, spelling and grammar mistakes I wasnt going to poke fun lol

At least in that you are smart or maybe street wise. ;)
 
What was the treatment for? Though a lot of my friends and family members are gay, I see no reason to force anybody to associate with them, if they do not want to. One exception is emergency help. But otherwise all the guy or girl need do is walk a block to the next MD or baker.

This seemed to be a very coincidental anecdote. On the very day in Indiana that Mike Pence signs this into law in Indiana, a poster happens to have a good friend in Indiana who just at that same time was declined treatment by a doctor because he's gay.

I mean, what are the odds?:roll:
 
translation: you cant answer the questions or back up your statements. thanks
thats what i thought. WHen you are ready to stop dodging let me know.

I have followed your input and feel it would be a waste of time to discuss it with you.
 
This seemed to be a very coincidental anecdote. On the very day in Indiana that Mike Pence signs this into law in Indiana, a poster happens to have a good friend in Indiana who just at that same time was declined treatment by a doctor because he's gay.

I mean, what are the odds?:roll:

"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people". :)
 
Actually, in this country, you can decide all day long who you will sell your wares to. You can decide you don't want to sell your wares to bikers, hippies, cigarette smokers, brunettes, people with brown eyes, people who smell bad, people who love cats, and so on.

What you can't do is decide you don't want to sell your wares to the protected classes. You can decline service to or an engagement of commerce with any gay person you want to. You just can't say you're doing it because the person is gay.

If you decide not to sell to" people who love cats" I will boycott you! I love cats!
 
How does abortion fit in with this law? How about birth control? Someone shows up at a drug store wanting to buy condoms. But the person behind the counter doesn't want to sell them to you based on his/her religion. How about selling prescriptions to divorcees? Or atheists?

This will get shot down in the courts, but it will be interesting to see how far this does and how much damage Pence will do to his state before it gets overturned.

What if the person behind the counter decides he isn't going to sell you condoms because you're a scary looking biker and he doesn't want you in his store? Then you have to find your condoms somewhere else.

Curious how a druggist would know someone is a divorcee or an atheist?

Can everyone be a little more dramatic?
 
If you decide not to sell to" people who love cats" I will boycott you! I love cats!

So do I. I wouldn't go to a store whose owner hated animals. Isn't having a choice in who you engage in commerce with grand?
 
1.)Refusing to serve protected groups = broke the law = a forced 'yes' = not possible / practical to say no
2.)As I've been saying all along.
3.) But you keep denying, saying there's a choice here.
4.)There's really not. The only choice allowed, the only choice that's acceptable, is 'yes', by the force of the government gun.
5.)Sure, sure. Kinda getting used to your baseless claim that you are operating on a factual basis. It's little more than opinion and follow the push agenda talking points / narrative.

1.) false WE ARE ALL PROTECTED GROUPS. all of us and you can in fact refuse service to anybody.
that is not the law and why there is no force. thank you again for further proving it lol
you can factually say no and thats already been proven, let us know when you can prove otherwise
2.) yes we know you keep saying that but facts prove it wrong and it gets destroyed everything. Fact remains you can say no. Its done everyday and my examples prove that. There is 0 force to say yes
3.) I dont deny anything, facts prove there is a choice.
4.) already proven 100% false, nobody honest, objective and educated will ever believe that lie
5.) translation: your post failed, got destroyed again, you cant support it or post one fact proving it so you simply deflect. that's what i thought
facts win again

here we go, its like leading a horse to water. question for you.

Say you are gay, you come into my auto parts store, do i have to server you because you are gay?
 
So do I. I wouldn't go to a store whose owner hated animals. Isn't having a choice in who you engage in commerce with grand?

You would think so especially, when you read all the garbage the bigots produce.
 
I wouldn't bet too much on the Supreme Court of the US. A couple of the Jurists (Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) are under the strong financial influence of the Koch brothers and are paid handsomely. Justice Samuel Alito is very conservative and allowed foreign money to come into America to possibly influence elections. Justice Anthony Kennedy is usually a swing vote and, for the most part, unreliable as to which way he will go.

You stumbled into the wrong thread. This isn't the Conspiracy Theory forum.
 
I have followed your input and feel it would be a waste of time to discuss it with you.

Translation: you know that i (like all honest, rational and objective posters) will require you to back up your claims with facts and logic, since you already know that you cant do it, you are conceding.
I accept your concession. Good move quitting when you know your false claims cant win.
WHen you can support your false claims let us know please, thank you
 
I decided to test my position on this issue by asking, how would I fare discriminating based on political association? In other words, could I discriminate against someone for being a Neo-Nazi? And I said, sure, why not, the bastards are hostile and repugnant to everything I am (though why a Neo-Nazi would want to give money to a Jew is entirely another kind of discussion).

Whoops! I'd be successfully sued for this, apparently.

KKK wins lawsuit against bakery for discrimination | Tribune Herald

Which leads to at least one question: wtf is it with business discrimination lawsuits and bakeries anyway? At one point did the universe declare that humanity's discrimination wars would be waged in our nation's bakeries?

The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization’s annual birthday party.

Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.


You can't discriminate against them using your religious beliefs as the reason why. This situation is no different than what we're discussing - people using their religious beliefs as a reason to refuse service.

You can, however, refuse to serve them or engage in commerce with them because they repulse you.
 
Translation: you know that i (like all honest, rational and objective posters) will require you to back up your claims with facts and logic, since you already know that you cant do it, you are conceding.
I accept your concession. Good move quitting when you know your false claims cant win.
WHen you can support you false claims let us know please, thank you

Nope. You are absolutely wrong. You would not understand the material. Only question would be, whether it was that you didn't read it or couldn't understand it. And I hate that kind of puzzle.
 
At least in that you are smart or maybe street wise. ;)

just one of the many parts of my smarts and reality based/logical thinking :cool:
 
Blacks were 7% of the voting population and voted 58% in support of Prop 8.


Other demographics that had a greater impact were:

Conservative - 36% of the voting population voting 82% in support of the measure
Republican - 34% of the voting population voting 81% in support of the measure
Weekly Religious Services - 45% of the voting population voting 70% of the measure
Age 65+ - 23% of the voting population voting 67% in support of the measure
Latino/Hispanic - 14% of the voting population voting 59% in support of the measure​



It would be more accurate to say that Conservatives, Republicans, Religous Folks, older folks, and Latino/Hispanics had more impact on passing Prop 8 than did Blacks.


http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/pi_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

>>>>

My point was that blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8 on the same ballot where they voted for Barack Obama and the Democratic candidates. That was in response to his claim that the Republican base "hates gays".

By that statistic I guess 58% of black voters in California hate gays.
 
1.) false WE ARE ALL PROTECTED GROUPS.
This would render protected groups meaningless, yet there's so much legislation tied to them. So they are not meaningless.
all of us and you can in fact refuse service to anybody.
Perhaps in theory, but not in reality.
that is not the law and why there is no force. thank you again for further proving it lol
So which entity fined the Christian bakers? For refusing to server the couple? That'd be government. So obviously there must be a law to empowered them to assess the fine. Unless this particular government was acting lawlessly, which might be the case. Certainly overreach, if you ask me.
you can factually say no and thats already been proven, let us know when you can prove otherwise
I think I just did.
2.) yes we know you keep saying that but facts prove it wrong and it gets destroyed everything. Fact remains you can say no. Its done everyday and my examples prove that. There is 0 force to say yes
Not in any sort of practical sense.
3.) I dont deny anything, facts prove there is a choice.
Not in any sort of practical sense.
4.) already proven 100% false, nobody honest, objective and educated will ever believe that lie
5.) translation: your post failed, got destroyed again, you cant support it or post one fact proving it so you simply deflect. that's what i thought
facts win again

here we go, its like leading a horse to water. question for you.

Say you are gay, you come into my auto parts store, do i have to server you because you are gay?

You dare not say no for fear that I try to claim sexual orientation discrimination.
Regardless of if I can or not, it'd still cost you a ton of money in legal fees to prepare a defense.
 
1.)Nope. You are absolutely wrong.
2.) You would not understand the material.
3.) Only question would be, whether it was that you didn't read it or couldn't understand it. And I hate that kind of puzzle.

1.) im sure you have that opinion
2.) I already proved to understand the topic better than yourself
3.) yeah i see your dilemma. Do you keep having opinions that are based on falsehoods, denial and fantasy where things are happy in your head or have do you try to support them, totally fail, have destroyed and be ripped from the delusional cloud that surrounds your false claims.
Its ok some people dont like facts and your views obviously reflect that.

Like i said, its quite obvious you simply cant support your false claims so you are deflecting, continue as its hilarious. BUT as always if you truly feel your claims are correct, PLEASE feel free to support them with facts, teach me a lesson in front of everybody! But we know that wont happen. The deflections and failed insults will continue. Thanks

facts win again
 
Back
Top Bottom