• 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

You guys act like you have a right to be a member of all clubs. Just sayin'..

I'm not qualified for a homosexuals only club. And I wouldn't want to be a member of a heterosexuals or homosexuals only club.
 
Do you have freedom of speech when you are on your employer's time? The time your employer paid for.

I don't see how a private employer's rules regarding employees are relevant here. The freedom of speech issue arises in the context of state public accommodations laws because those laws constitute state action that either compels people to express or endorse views they do not agree with. The Supreme Court has held since before WWII that the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of speech applies to states also.
 
There is nothing in the RFRA that permits discrimination. An anti-gay widget seller must sell a widget to a gay customer.
 
I'm not qualified for a homosexuals only club. And I wouldn't want to be a member of a heterosexuals or homosexuals only club.

Do you have any idea how many clubs had to give in to people demanding they change their rules? The mindset behind that kind of crap is the same mindset behind these laws.
 
I'm against any discrimination that would deny any citizen constitutional right to moral conscience. .

And there is a legal pathway for you discriminate as I have already pointed out.
 
Do you have any idea how many clubs had to give in to people demanding they change their rules? The mindset behind that kind of crap is the same mindset behind these laws.

Okay how many?
 
Okay how many?

Far too many. The fact is your so called legal avenue doesn't get anyone away from people like you. You will still demand entry into their club and you will still harass them until you get your way.
 
Far too many. The fact is your so called legal avenue doesn't get anyone away from people like you.

Okay so you don't know, go figure

You will still demand entry into their club and you will still harass them until you get your way.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?
 
And there is a legal pathway for you discriminate as I have already pointed out.

And you are in such a mindset that those you wish to force to comply to your wishes have no legal pathways? think again. When folks think they can trash and trample the rights of others for what they think is the "right" way to proceed need to find an ounce of tolerance for others who do not agree with them and respect their rights. But that isn't what you are about.
 
Okay so you don't know, go figure

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Remember that whole thing with gays demanding entry to the boy scouts? Ever read about men only golf clubs having to give in and allow women in because they wouldn't shut the **** up about being denied entry? We both know clubs are more or less forced to give in to people like you all the time. Furthermore, how does the government behave when a club is denying entry of certain people? Do they perhaps punish the clubs for it? They do you say? Go figure.
 
I see. Architects are engaging in expressive speech through their work, but photographers are not. When they are forced by law to celebrate an event they disapprove of, government is not unconstitutionally compelling them to engage in certain speech against their will.

NO,photographers may also be engaging in expressive speech. For example, a landscape photographer could refuse to photograph a wedding as it's not a service he offers the public.

Say there is a group of openly homosexual men who have a fetish for things associated with Nazism. They want to have a party, with a swastika-bedizened cake and everyone dressed in SS caps, uniforms--or at least parts of uniforms--and boots. Just to add to the fun, they want to hire Cohen, an observant Jew who is a photographer in town, to take photographs to commemorate the event. They tell him they are homosexuals and want the photos to show them in embraces and in other erotically suggestive poses. This man does the usual wedding and bar mitzvah photographs, but he also has had a number of his photos of human figures exhibited in galleries. Although Cohen does not have as low an opinion of homosexuals as of Nazis, he considers homosexuality immoral and wants no part of celebrating it in pictures. But since photographs are not a form of aesthetic expression like architecture, and because under the state law photography studios qualify as public accommodations, he cannot refuse this job. Is that what you would say?

For one thing, the fact that he displays portraits in art galleries is irrelevant as the work for hire you refer to is not for an art gallery. So let's not confuse the issue.

And I think he should not be able to refuse to photograph a Nazi-themed event but should be able to refuse to photograph anything that is sexually suggestive

And as an amateur photographer, I think photography does have an expressive element, even when done for such "mundane" and commercial purposes as wedding photography (though there may be some areas of commercial photography that this doesn't apply to) so there is a possibility that a photographer might be able to refuse to work an event but that would be contingent on whether his performing the service would lead others to reasonably conclude that he approves or supports the ideas being expressed or that such work is part of the services he provides.
 
And you are in such a mindset that those you wish to force to comply to your wishes have no legal pathways? think again. When folks think they can trash and trample the rights of others for what they think is the "right" way to proceed need to find an ounce of tolerance for others who do not agree with them and respect their rights. But that isn't what you are about.

If I wasn't clear I think opening a heterosexuals only club should be perfectly legal whether the service be a photographer, baker or renting chairs. In places open to the general public places of public accommodation you're going to have to put your personal bias aside no matter whom you want to discriminate against be they black, chinese, gay, hindu, satanists, etc.
 

When I accept money to photograph a wedding it is a job that has to produce results. It not about artistic creative expression or freedom of speech.
 
When I accept money to photograph a wedding it is a job that has to produce results. It not about artistic creative expression or freedom of speech.

I expect that is usually how it goes with wedding photography, but I also see how one could make it an artistic endeavor.
 
I expect that is usually how it goes with wedding photography, but I also see how one could make it an artistic endeavor.

I don't get hired for my artistic endeavors. I get hired for what I already know and my reputation.
 
We tolerate bigots. We don't tolerate bigoted laws.
A law that forces a person to act against his religious faith is a bigoted law. Pence corrected that error with the stroke of his pen. Chalk one up for liberty
 
If they operate their business as a public accomodation, I do have a right to their labor.



Libertarians usually have a morally perverse concept of liberty





hate

Slave owners had the right to the labor of others as well. Didn't make it right
 
Last edited:
i am not against the rights of any religious person to worship. i am against the practice of using that faith to discriminate against others in a place of business. in other words, i don't want businesses kicking my gay friends or relatives out. that is too close to what routinely happened to non-white races before the civil rights movement, and it makes my state look bad. it has the potential to have a significantly negative economic impact, too, and i work here.
There are laws already in place that do not permit people kicking people out of work over sexual orientation. You know as a woman I spent a good part of my working life fighting for the rights of women. Whether it be equal pay or time off during pregnancies/births. One species had to be the one to cook it in the oven for nine months. That shouldn't be held against her. Let me tell ya from experience by 11:00 AM if you didn't feed the child or pump, that breast milk would shoot across the room if it were allowed to. It is so uncomfortable, painful and embarrassing when your breasts start to leak soaking through pads and wetting your garments. My suggestions for a place for nursing moms to pump was ignored when I needed it but later on the company did provide a curtained area for moms who needed to pump during their lunch hour in the gym. In the same breath, I support religious rights. If a person finds same sex sinful they should be allowed to hold that belief whether in private or in the public square and not be forced by law to violate those beliefs. But at the same time support all citizens of this country regardless of race, gender, religion etc. the basic inalienable rights we all possess. And when you deny a man the right to his moral conscience you are stepping on his liberties.
 
i am not against the rights of any religious person to worship. i am against the practice of using that faith to discriminate against others in a place of business. in other words, i don't want businesses kicking my gay friends or relatives out. that is too close to what routinely happened to non-white races before the civil rights movement, and it makes my state look bad. it has the potential to have a significantly negative economic impact, too, and i work here.
Just for the record, the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, not simply the freedom to worship
 
There are laws already in place that do not permit people kicking people out of work over sexual orientation. You know as a woman I spent a good part of my working life fighting for the rights of women. Whether it be equal pay or time off during pregnancies/births. One species had to be the one to cook it in the oven for nine months. That shouldn't be held against her. Let me tell ya from experience by 11:00 AM if you didn't feed the child or pump, that breast milk would shoot across the room if it were allowed to. It is so uncomfortable, painful and embarrassing when your breasts start to leak soaking through pads and wetting your garments. My suggestions for a place for nursing moms to pump was ignored when I needed it but later on the company did provide a curtained area for moms who needed to pump during their lunch hour in the gym. In the same breath, I support religious rights. If a person finds same sex sinful they should be allowed to hold that belief whether in private or in the public square and not be forced by law to violate those beliefs. But at the same time support all citizens of this country regardless of race, gender, religion etc. the basic inalienable rights we all possess. And when you deny a man the right to his moral conscience you are stepping on his liberties.

Corinthians 14:34

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
 
A law that forces a person to act against his religious faith is a bigoted law. Pence corrected that error with the stroke of his pen. Chalk one up for liberty

I'll chalk one up for another rightwinger who doesn't understand what bigotry is about
 
Back
Top Bottom