• 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

Let's drop the heterosexual part. Let's just stick with white males. It's easy for the security guard to tell if someone is a white male.

the man in the pic below? White or black?

alexandar.jpg
 
1.) thats what im asking you!? lol
what is it, answer the question with facts and it will solve all your misconceptions
2.) they can refuse service to anybody they want in general
Apparently not.
In Jan. 2013, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes refused to sell her and her fiancée a cake for their upcoming wedding.
Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination
Apparently you can refuse to serve anybody in general, just not if they are a same sex couple in particular.
3.) ahhh now you are making progress, answer that question, what is the basis . . in court . . what will be discussed . . i can assure you it most certainly wont be refusal of service
4.) no thier ACTUAL complaint is 100% justified, what you think the compliant is is worthless and not true.
It appears as if their complaint is that they weren't served because of their lesbian marriage, and their claim is being discriminated for that reason. 'Course I may be reading it wrong or USA Today might be reporting it wrong.
5.) nope not saying that either.

you have the right to swing your fist and move about freely.
if you decide you want to swing your fist in a space somebody already is and you punch them in the face, do YOU get to complain they infringed on your right to move freely?
or do they get to complain that you assaulted them and infringed on thier rights by doing so?

if you find the TRUE, FACTUAL answer to what the complaint, case, breaking the law is about you will answer your own questions.
 
Something like fifteen states have anti-discriminatory laws specifically targeting sexual orientation and gender identity. This bonehead politician who signed this bill is on the wrong side of history.

Adding sexual orientation to the bases on which state public accommodations may not discriminate tends to increase the friction between those laws and First Amendment protections. Should make for some interesting constitutional challenges to those state laws. Statists already despise the First Amendment almost as much as they do the Second--seeing a couple of those laws struck down on free speech grounds would give them something more to sulk about.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious how you come to any meaningful difference between discriminating based on race, and especially religion, versus sexual orientation.

I pretty much agree with these people. Take what you want from this video.

 
Right....I disagree the Homosexual plight has anything to do with the civil rights movement. Guess I'm a bigot.

What of it?

Then you are simply being selective in your bigotry. People of the mindset that you are espousing are rarely rational in their bigotry in any event.
 
Title II and Title VII need to be repealed along with laws such as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Civil Rights Act of 1968 and any other relevant federal and state laws. Needless to say this crap is a virus and it will take some doing to get rid of it.

Ok, I disagree and really wouldn't favor a return to the days of Jim Crow and communities treating minorities as second class citizens, but at least I know where you stand and that I'm glad the vast majority don't hold those views.
 
There's more than just a bit of irony in these situations. The business owner says that he doesn't agree with a person's choices so he chooses not to do business with that person. That person (the one from the tolerance crowd mind you) responds by saying that he does not agree with the business owner's choices so he is going to use the full force of the law to inflict harm on the business owner.

Tolerance is certainly a complex (and obviously hypocritical) issue

Where you are wrong is that "tolerance" does not require one to be "tolerant" of the "intolerant"....understand the circular reasoning there?
 
1.)Apparently not.
Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination
2.)apparently you can refuse to serve anybody in general, just not if they are a same sex couple in particular.
3.)It appears as if their complaint is that they weren't served because of their lesbian marriage, and their claim is being discriminated for that reason. 'Course I may be reading it wrong or USA Today might be reporting it wrong.

1.) LMAO im starting to think you just arent interested in facts and are playing games. It was not the refusal of service that is the issue. THis isnt rocket science.
just like in case of rape. Its not the sex that is the issue
2.) wrong again as your link, law and rights prove
3.) OH OHWE ARE MAKING PROGRESS . . . what was that part you said again???? i hilighted it for you

discrimination . . . ahhhhh

now was it legal discrimination or illegal discrimination?
 
I pretty much agree with these people. Take what you want from this video.



Bigots often involve in grasping for anything and everything that they can to justify their selective bigotry....this example is no different.
 
1.)sigh. Again, I asked you to give me a right the laws protect. Do you have one?
2.)What do you think we are talking about?
3.) You aren't usually this blind and ignorant.

1.) sigh all you ant it was already done, lying and acting like it wasnt only cause your post to further fail.
2.) i have no clue what YOU are talking about because you make it all up and none of it is true this is why i have to ask. Bu im very educated on the topic and know exactly what that is.

so i will ask you AGAIN and i bet you dodge it AGAIN because you know the answer destroys your claims.

What business, what someone and what laws(banned reasons)

3.) failed insult arent helping your failed arguments, they just amplify the loss of your reasoning vs facts.
 
1.) weird im a christian (along with the majority of this country) and it doesnt force me out of business at all, in fact it doesnt do anything to me, it PROTECTS me as a chrisitain. so that lie you just made up fails the test of facts and relaity
2.) well since you made up number 1, 2 also fails.
facts win again
Your argument fails because you ignored what I actually said, that it affected Christians MOSTLY. So the facts do win
 
1.) LMAO im starting to think you just arent interested in facts and are playing games. It was not the refusal of service that is the issue. THis isnt rocket science.
just like in case of rape. Its not the sex that is the issue
2.) wrong again as your link, law and rights prove
3.) OH OHWE ARE MAKING PROGRESS . . . what was that part you said again???? i hilighted it for you

discrimination . . . ahhhhh

now was it legal discrimination or illegal discrimination?

There's such a thing as legal discrimination? Didn't think that was possible.

So in essence the entire thing boils down to 'I'm sorry but we don't offer same-sex wedding cakes' vs. 'we won't serve you because we believe same sex couples are a sin'.

Somewhere along the line, someone posted that probably the most effective measure in combating this is opening your own bakery, or frequent another one. This seems to bear out in that:
Sweet Cakes closed its doors in Dec. 2013, in the midst of the public backlash from the investigation. The owner of the bakery said she would keep baking cakes at a home-based bakery.
Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

So why is it that the courts and lawyers need to be involved anyway? The market seems to have already taken care of it.
 
So you oppose the CRA and would like to see it repealed? At least Title II?

A large part of it, yes. It would go a long way simply to define public accommodations as government facilities, like parks, restrooms, etc.
 
Your argument fails because you ignored what I actually said, that it affected Christians MOSTLY. So the facts do win

but thats to a fact at all. in fact I dont know one christian in real life affected NEGATIVELY by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws, they protect us. Based on Christianity ZERO Christians are affected.
so yes the facts i sated do win and the stuff you made up is simply false.
facts win again
 
translation: you got nothing lol
please let me know when you have anything that supports your claims, thanks
facts win again

Translation: I had you pegged the moment I came upon your first posts on this forum. You dance like a Chinese panda and I believe you actually think the things you do, but you've spent literally 35 pages defending some inarticulate opinion on the context of this particular debate. It's been pointed out to you that anti-discrimination laws (Meaning laws that can be broken with non-compliance and punished for non-compliance) in some states include sexual orientation as a protected group, yet you ask for specific language that says those that do discriminate will be punished by law enforcement? It was provided to you several times. Your out (once you realized the error of your dance) was to say that if you want to discriminate, then simply don't go into business, BUT, and this is the really important part, you created that strawman in your mind. No one ever to my knowledge was arguing that individuals could not discriminate. The argument germane to this topic is whether Indiana's new law allowing businesses to discriminate based on religious conviction was correct, or whether it wasn't. Some even argued whether it was legal or could survive a constitutional challenge? Some argued the morality of it. Some argued whether it was good idea at all, and some like me question the long term efficacy of such a law.

When people have pinned you down to specific questions regarding your initial position, you divert asking them to provide more details, yet, anyone with one iota of honesty and English language reading comprehension understood full well what they were asking. This inability to comprehend what is being asked of you lends itself to credibility questions regarding your self-declared expert opinion on the subject matter.

I'm not convinced, nor are many that have followed along, but you will say something to the effect that, "Translation: blah blah" Or "I'm factually correct and you are wrong".. Again, blah, blah..

I wonder what you're like in real life, serious question. Most people type and speak colloquially online, pretty similar to how they talk in real life, but you, I just can't imagine that you actually talk the way you do?


Tim-
 
can ANYBODY please post this imaginary law for me that forces me to serve gays? (or any person based on gender, race, religion, etc)

anybody?
Not in Indiana, not anymore
 
1.)There's such a thing as legal discrimination? Didn't think that was possible.
2.) So in essence the entire thing boils down to 'I'm sorry but we don't offer same-sex wedding cakes' vs. 'we won't serve you because we believe same sex couples are a sin'.
3.)Somewhere along the line, someone posted that probably the most effective measure in combating this is opening your own bakery, or frequent another one. This seems to bear out in that:
Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination
4.)So why is it that the courts and lawyers need to be involved anyway? The market seems to have already taken care of it.

1.) wow this further explains your confusion. How could you not know this fact? Are you from america, im guessing no now
2.) no because all else being equal both of those statements are the same based on legality.
3.) correct, the owners did the right thing, they stopped breaking the law, infringing on peoples rights and they fixed thier stupid choice to be criminals and changed thier business.
home based, by appointment only, and with a change of business description etc etc etc
4.) laws were broken and rights were infringed
if your daughter is raped and you kill her rapist to courts and lawyers get involved? i mean "you took care of it" right?
 
Not in Indiana, not anymore

there was never one. if you disagree simply quote the law, you wont be able to because it never existed and any attempts will completely fail
 
I pretty much agree with these people. Take what you want from this video.

No thanks - not planning on watching a 31 minute video and hope to figure out how you're making decisions.
 
Then you are simply being selective in your bigotry. People of the mindset that you are espousing are rarely rational in their bigotry in any event.

The catch is that if I disagree with your opinion or you with mine, then I'm a bigot and so are you.

Bigot: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
 
Where you are wrong is that "tolerance" does not require one to be "tolerant" of the "intolerant"....understand the circular reasoning there?

If you're intolerant to people with whom you disagree, you're intolerant period.
 
Ok, I disagree and really wouldn't favor a return to the days of Jim Crow and communities treating minorities as second class citizens, but at least I know where you stand and that I'm glad the vast majority don't hold those views.

In the era of Jim Crow businesses were forced to discriminate and in the present era they are forced not to discriminate. All my position says is that both positions are wrong and businesses should be able to practice their rights like everyone else.
 
No thanks - not planning on watching a 31 minute video and hope to figure out how you're making decisions.

Then you won't get you question answered.

That's my POV like it or not
 
Back
Top Bottom