• 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

Where in the bible does it say you have to sell to everybody even if it violates your conscience?

Maybe not "sell to everybody" but it does say ". . . sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Matthew 19:21
 
There are several pages of differences. None of Indiana's law is the same as the federal RFRA

Nope...Here are the specific protection of religious liberty in both laws:

Here's the text of the federal RFRA:

Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

And here is the text of Indiana's RFRA:

A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
 
never been to Alaska, huh?
No, but I can read a map. I can't see anyplace in Alaska that might not have more than one bakery within 500 miles. Perhaps you can be more specific?
 
We don't need to do this again. Here's how your article starts:



Not quite true. If he personally "stood for Christian values' no one cares. They do care when his foundation spends millions supporting groups dedicated to banning or preventing SSM. The former is a belief on how best to live his life (like him I'm also still married to my first wife), the latter is an effort to enforce his beliefs on the rest of the country. Apples and dump trucks.

That's his right to do so. And no it's him adding is two cents. [so to speak]

The truth is, we are working from an entirely different worldview paradigm than the non-believers, and our motives are different from what they think.
 
Last edited:
They are not asked to bend, they are asked to not discriminate and break the law.

They are a business, period.

And this has nothing to with unelected federal judges but with constitutional rights and federal laws.

They just changed the law, Bro.
 
They just changed the law, Bro.

Not if they change the federal public accommodation laws, I doubt the supreme court will allow that one to stand.
 
Not if they change the federal public accommodation laws, I doubt the supreme court will allow that one to stand.

It won't go to the SCOTUS first, if at all.. That's where the other unelected federal judges come into play.
 
No, but I can read a map. I can't see anyplace in Alaska that might not have more than one bakery within 500 miles. Perhaps you can be more specific?

I have heard that the homosexual Eskimo community in Alaska is poorly served when it comes to wedding cakes. It seems they often have to have them flown in from more than 500 miles away at great expense.
 
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.

Exactly. Where are the entrepreneurial homosexual bakers, when there is so much unmet demand? Maybe states should have laws that require people to open businesses, wherever a government agency has decided there are too few of a given type to suit the convenience of homosexual residents.
 
I heard someone on one of the Sunday morning political shows say this law will be like the early 60's in the south, where you see signs on store front windows saying "We don't serve 'whoever'" (she was alluding to black people of course) and without realizing it, she exposed the flaw in her argument against the new law.

A baker for example, refusing to create/provide a cake for a gay wedding because gay marriage violates their religious beliefs, isn't discrimination and it's well within their rights to refuse to do so... However, that same baker refusing to serve gay people period, because homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, is unjustified discrimination in my view.

The difference between the 2 is clear.. Not wanting to take part in, or provide services for, an event (gay marriage) that violates the bakers religious beliefs, is in my view perfectly justified... However, serving gay people in general who are there for example just to buy a cake for general consumption, isn't violating the bakers religious beliefs, because selling goods to gay people doesn't facilitate the gay lifestyle, nor does it translate into an endorsement of homosexuality... Therefore, if the baker refuses to serve gay people in general, that is discrimination against gay people and it just flat out wrong.

From what I gather, this law isn't designed to allow businesses to freely discriminate against various groups of people they don't like or disagree with, but to protect them from being forced to facilitate or participate in, an event or activity that truly violates or compromises their religious principals and beliefs. It's kind of like being a second amendment advocate that owns a gun shop, who overhears someone on the phone saying they wanted to shoot one of their neighbors, and then refusing to sell them a revolver 5 minutes later. It comes down to a persons morals and beliefs, and as long as we aren't talking about a life or death situations, nobody should be forced to have to violate either of them in order to make a living.
 
I heard someone on one of the Sunday morning political shows say this law will be like the early 60's in the south, where you see signs on store front windows saying "We don't serve 'whoever'" (she was alluding to black people of course) and without realizing it, she exposed the flaw in her argument against the new law.

A baker for example, refusing to create/provide a cake for a gay wedding because gay marriage violates their religious beliefs, isn't discrimination and it's well within their rights to refuse to do so... However, that same baker refusing to serve gay people period, because homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, is unjustified discrimination in my view.

The difference between the 2 is clear.. Not wanting to take part in, or provide services for, an event (gay marriage) that violates the bakers religious beliefs, is in my view perfectly justified... However, serving gay people in general who are there for example just to buy a cake for general consumption, isn't violating the bakers religious beliefs, because selling goods to gay people doesn't facilitate the gay lifestyle, nor does it translate into an endorsement of homosexuality... Therefore, if the baker refuses to serve gay people in general, that is discrimination against gay people and it just flat out wrong.

From what I gather, this law isn't designed to allow businesses to freely discriminate against various groups of people they don't like or disagree with, but to protect them from being forced to facilitate or participate in, an event or activity that truly violates or compromises their religious principals and beliefs. It's kind of like being a second amendment advocate that owns a gun shop, who overhears someone on the phone saying they wanted to shoot one of their neighbors, and then refusing to sell them a revolver 5 minutes later. It comes down to a persons morals and beliefs, and as long as we aren't talking about a life or death situations, nobody should be forced to have to violate either of them in order to make a living.

Good post, Grim. I would say I pretty much agree with you, here.
 

Churches being tax exempt was done for very good reasons. One of which I not only expected you to know, but to celebrate... It was to preserve the separation of religion and government, because with no financial dealings between the 2 of them, the government can't use their taxation power to destroy a particular church, nor can it use financial preference to curry favor, influence or buy religious support or endorsements.
 
Churches being tax exempt was done for very good reasons. One of which I not only expected you to know, but to celebrate... It was to preserve the separation of religion and government, because with no financial dealings between the 2 of them, the government can't use their taxation power to destroy a particular church, nor can it use financial preference to curry favor, influence or buy religious support or endorsements.

The issue with that is, churches that discuss and influence politics are exempt as well.
 
how does one determine that someone's religious belief is sincere ?

One supposes it is determined much like any other consideration of motive in law. As the issue of sincerity in prior exercise of religious exemption cases (e.g. Hobby Lobby) are rare or never documented, it's not a realistic concern.
 
The issue with that is, churches that discuss and influence politics are exempt as well.

Why shouldn't they be? Religious people have the same freedom of speech as anyone else. I don't have a problem with a religion having political views and preferences, because they are just as much congressional constituents and American citizens as anyone else.

Their exemption isn't a privilege that's subject to conditions, or a trade off for political nuetrality like a 501-C. Their tax exempt status is vital to assure that religion and government can't have power and influience over each other, and to assure that the government can't use taxation as a means to abridge freedom of religion...
 
Why shouldn't they be? Religious people have the same freedom of speech as anyone else. I don't have a problem with a religion having political views and preferences, because they are just as much congressional constituents and American citizens as anyone else.

Their exemption isn't a privilege that's subject to conditions, or a trade off for political nuetrality like a 501-C. Their tax exempt status is vital to assure that religion and government can't have power and influience over each other, and to assure that the government can't use taxation as a means to abridge freedom of religion...

The churches are having an influence on the government, isn't that power and influence?
 
Back
Top Bottom