• 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

SlevinKelevra said:
and what would you do if that was the only 1 cake shop within 500 miles of you? or if all cake shops were owned and run by religious opponents of your life?
etc
Click to expand...
Open a cake shop and make some money.
 
Henrin said:
The equal protection clause only applies to government. Perhaps you should read the clause you're referencing before using it as your argument.
Click to expand...

you asked about ANY anti-discrimination laws. do you think only the private sector could (theoretically) engage in discrimination?

wow.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
you asked about ANY anti-discrimination laws. do you think only the private sector could (theoretically) engage in discrimination?

wow.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough, so what is your argument towards business?
 
JasperL said:
Funny isn't it that Pence won't say out loud what you're asserting.

Indiana Governor: New Law 'Not About Discrimination' - ABC News



I think the problem is the dog whistle is getting heard by the rest of us... Got to love watching him squirm on this issue.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's squirming at all. That's an honest down-the-middle answer. Any dog whistle is a product of your imagination. I know how much you want there to be a dog whistle.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
yeh, that's an economical and feasible solution to the problem at hand all right.
Click to expand...

Yes, because it's so more realistic that there is one bakery within 500 miles of you.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
yeh, that's an economical and feasible solution to the problem at hand all right.
Click to expand...
No, it simply makes light of your "one cake shop in 500 miles" argument. The biggest problem in that scenario is that you've got a single cake shop serving one or more entire states. Sounds like an economic opportunity to me.
 
Blemonds said:
Hyperbole aside, word of mouth will produce that same result
Click to expand...

Not as quickly and not as universally. And if their convictions are so solid, there should be no issue with them advertising them.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
and what would you do if that was the only 1 cake shop within 500 miles of you? or if all cake shops were owned and run by religious opponents of your life?
etc
Click to expand...

I'd move. but your talking about a huge "what if" that the vast majority of people wouldn't have to deal with. that's not a realistic argument for the issue itself
 
SlevinKelevra said:
are all residents of alaska serviced by more than 1 within 500 miles?
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about exactly? Go to the yellow pages website and go through the pages of bakeries in Alaska. There is no doubt there is an absolute **** ton of bakeries in Alaska.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
are all residents of alaska serviced by more than 1 within 500 miles?
Click to expand...

ok. so if there is a clause in the indiana law that if you are the ONLY bakery in 500 miles you can't descriminate, would you be ok with the law then?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
...several states have copied the federal act or have adopted similar legislation. ...Upon my quick scan, Indiana’s version of the bill most resembles a similar law passed in Texas in 1999 but even that bill contains significant limitations that Indiana’s does not.

What is clear is that Indiana has not copied the federal legislation or those passed by other states, but has instead added more expansive language as seen below. The IRFRA adds several clauses which rightly give pause to the endless possibilities of using religion and religious freedom as a sword and a shield.
Click to expand...

https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/
Click to expand...

This citation confirms (unintentionally) my prior points - that the Indiana law is substantively like other RFRA's, including that of the federal government AND that the opposition is being hysterical and intolerant. The author, Matt Anderson, is an acknowledged supporter of gay marriage AND opponent of RFRA, but he claims he opposes it because it is "so vague and just a poorly written law", and makes the ludicrous claim that it does not even resemble its federal counterpart.

He makes these claims on the basis of what he says is "a quick scan" of another summary of other laws and cases provided by another website. Let's look at his Evelyn Wood trained reading skills:

First, if you review his source links it is true that Indiana has not (literally) copied word for word the federal legislation or (literally copied) those passed by other states". In fact NO STATE is a literal copy of each other or the federal RFRA. Texas is worded a little differently than New Mexico, New Mexico a little differently from Indiana, and Indiana a little differently than South Carolina. BUT all RFRA states and the federal RFRA convey a(n) (inadequate) protection the same religious protection, and the same legal requirements of a "compelling State interest", which is what the federal law requires.

So while Mr. Anderson anguishes over "the lack of any restrictive language" and in the failure of Indiana law to define "religion" (which he says invites a broad meaning) he is oblivious to the fact that other states don't define "religion" and most do not HAVE a clause that bothers to restrict the meaning of "religious exercise". But for three or four other States, almost everyone else either leaves meanings wide open to expansive readings OR vaguely say that the terms should mean whatever their particular State Constitution must mean by "the exercise of religion" and the US Constitution (see, for example Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc.). In fact 11 States of the 31 states with RFRA like protections in case law just leave it up to their own particular court case law history to figure it out. HOW much more open to expansive meaning can one get?

Finally, his third complaint is that "any action...may fall under the 'exercise of religion' (and) may or not be compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.' In other words, even if the belief is at the fringe of what a religion may or may not hold true, it falls under this definition of exercising one’s religion."

But contrary to his complaint, the few states that do explicitly define religious exercise do so very much like Indiana. For example:

Indiana: Section 5, which reads: “As used in this chapter, ‘exercise of religion’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” (Emphasis added.)

Arizona: "Exercise of religion" means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief"

New Mexico: "A. "free exercise of religion" means an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief;..."

Texas: "(a) In this chapter: (1) "Free exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. In determining whether an act or refusal to act is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief under this chapter, it is not necessary to determine that
the act or refusal to act is motivated by a central part or central requirement of the person's sincere religious belief."

While I would welcome a law that truly defends religious (and other) liberties from oppression by "anti-discrimination" laws, this one really ain't it. But at least the pedantic hysterical opposition conveys just how intolerant they are to even a tiny wisp of religious liberty by a lone baker - that itself is instructive.

.
 
Henrin said:
Who are you talking about exactly? Go to the yellow pages website and go through the pages of bakeries in Alaska. There is no doubt there is an absolute **** ton of bakeries in Alaska.
Click to expand...
that isn't what I claimed.


JoeTrumps said:
ok. so if there is a clause in the indiana law that if you are the ONLY bakery in 500 miles you can't descriminate, would you be ok with the law then?
Click to expand...

nope, but I'm glad you're realizing that for some (actually many people), whether it be gay, black, female, whatever, that "finding an alternative" to a discriminatory vendor may not be as easy as it sounds on paper.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
that isn't what I claimed.
Click to expand...

No, you're still going on about the guy in the middle of effing no where with nothing around him. It's just another way to make the well in the middle of the desert argument.
 
maxparrish said:
This citation confirms (unintentionally) my prior points - that the Indiana law is substantively like other RFRA's, including that of the federal government AND that the opposition is being hysterical and intolerant. The author, Matt Anderson, is an acknowledged supporter of gay marriage AND opponent of RFRA, but he claims he opposes it because it is "so vague and just a poorly written law", and makes the ludicrous claim that it does not even resemble its federal counterpart.

He makes these claims on the basis of what he says is "a quick scan" of another summary of other laws and cases provided by another website. Let's look at his Evelyn Wood trained reading skills:

First, if you review his source links it is true that Indiana has not (literally) copied word for word the federal legislation or (literally copied) those passed by other states". In fact NO STATE is a literal copy of each other or the federal RFRA. Texas is worded a little differently than New Mexico, New Mexico a little differently from Indiana, and Indiana a little differently than South Carolina. BUT all RFRA states and the federal RFRA convey a(n) (inadequate) protection the same religious protection, and the same legal requirements of a "compelling State interest", which is what the federal law requires.

So while Mr. Anderson anguishes over "the lack of any restrictive language" and in the failure of Indiana law to define "religion" (which he says invites a broad meaning) he is oblivious to the fact that other states don't define "religion" and most do not HAVE a clause that bothers to restrict the meaning of "religious exercise". But for three or four other States, almost everyone else either leaves meanings wide open to expansive readings OR vaguely say that the terms should mean whatever their particular State Constitution must mean by "the exercise of religion" and the US Constitution (see, for example Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc.). In fact 11 States of the 31 states with RFRA like protections in case law just leave it up to their own particular court case law history to figure it out. HOW much more open to expansive meaning can one get?

Finally, his third complaint is that "any action...may fall under the 'exercise of religion' (and) may or not be compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.' In other words, even if the belief is at the fringe of what a religion may or may not hold true, it falls under this definition of exercising one’s religion."

But contrary to his complaint, the few states that do explicitly define religious exercise do so very much like Indiana. For example:

Indiana: Section 5, which reads: “As used in this chapter, ‘exercise of religion’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” (Emphasis added.)

Arizona: "Exercise of religion" means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief"

New Mexico: "A. "free exercise of religion" means an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief;..."

Texas: "(a) In this chapter: (1) "Free exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. In determining whether an act or refusal to act is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief under this chapter, it is not necessary to determine that
the act or refusal to act is motivated by a central part or central requirement of the person's sincere religious belief."

While I would welcome a law that truly defends religious (and other) liberties from oppression by "anti-discrimination" laws, this one really ain't it. But at least the pedantic hysterical opposition conveys just how intolerant they are to even a tiny wisp of religious liberty by a lone baker - that itself is instructive.

.
Click to expand...

how does one determine that someone's religious belief is sincere ?
 
Henrin said:
No, you're still going on about the guy in the middle of effing no where with nothing around him. It's just another way to make the well in the middle of the desert argument.
Click to expand...


it's a legitimate question to ask when it is claimed that people always have alternatives
 
sangha said:
The Federal RFRA is less than a page long. Indiana's is several pages long.

Obviously, they're not the same.
Click to expand...

Sorry, if you read it along with related federal case law, the federal RFRA is substantively the same, nearly identical in scope and meaning. No one is claiming the wording is exactly the same, but that the meaning nearly is.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]'We're not going to change this law'[/h] Indiana Gov. Mike Pence says it wasn't a mistake to enact a measure that has garnered widespread criticism. 'Not about discrimination' »
Click to expand...


I wonder why Pence is now saying that he will push for "clarification" of just what is supported and made legal in the Religious Freedom Bill
Gov. Mike Pence to push for clarification of 'religious freedom' law
Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to "clarify" that Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"I support religious liberty, and I support this law," Pence said in an exclusive interview. "But we are in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend to see if there's a way to clarify the intent of the law."
<snip>
Amid the deepest crisis of his political career, Pence said repeatedly that the intense blowback against the new law is the result of a "misunderstanding driven by misinformation."

He adamantly insisted that RFRA will not open the door to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians. But he did acknowledge that Indiana's image — and potentially its economic health — has been hurt badly by the controversy.
Click to expand...


Money always talks to politicians, even when it upsets certain constituents.
 
Somerville said:
I wonder why Pence is now saying that he will push for "clarification" of just what is supported and made legal in the Religious Freedom Bill



Money always talks to politicians, even when it upsets certain constituents.
Click to expand...

I think he was surprised by the dishonesty of RFRA's critics and the gullibility of those who reported the story.
 
AGENT J said:
where in the bible does it say I have to open a store and then violate the rights of other Americans? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Where in the bible does it say you have to sell to everybody even if it violates your conscience?
 
maxparrish said:
Sorry, if you read it along with related federal case law, the federal RFRA is substantively the same, nearly identical in scope and meaning. No one is claiming the wording is exactly the same, but that the meaning nearly is.
Click to expand...

There are several pages of differences. None of Indiana's law is the same as the federal RFRA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom