• 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

The better response is the one we saw earlier, the one where businesses advertise that they serve everyone. A freedom solution

As long as they actually serve everyone, I would support that.
 
1.)They have been threatened with financial penalty and hardship through legal channels if they do not comply... You can call that what you want, but it doesn't change what it is.

2.)Where did you come up with that? That does not apply in any way to what I said.
3.) If a gay person orders a wedding cake and does not specify it's for a gay wedding, then if the baker refuses, that in my view is discrimination, not a religious objection.
4.)I just don't see that as the same.
5.) Denying people an apartment because you disagree with their lifestyle or because you object to how they might conduct themselves behind closed doors, isn't a justification to refuse to rent to them.
6.) I realize that there are some grey areas with this, but I just try and judge this situation considering both sides and doing what is right.
7.)Your question brings to mind a similar debate I've seen discussed in the past, that is far tougher than this one... It's whether the manager of a family oriented apartment complex, where children of all ages live and are given a resonably secure environment to engage in outdoor activities, is within his rights to refuse to rent to a preditor who was convicted of multiple counts of child molestation several years ago and served his time.
8.)Geez... lighten up... My point was, that if someone is so arrogant that they get in peoples faces with their lifestyle, which they know will be seen as objectionable and offensive to a significant percentage of our society, and basically challenge them to look sideways, then they deserve to be tossed to the curb.
9.)What I'm saying here is, tolerance is a 2 way street. if you show respect for people and treat them the way you would want to be treated, you'll find that tolerance will win the day, and quite often even over valid religious objections.

1.)I agree you can call it what you want but it wont change the fact of what it is, they were NOT threatened LMAO
laws are laws they arent threats

by that logic we are threatened every day then

2.) because its the same thing. it applies 100%
3.) its discrimination no matter what and its discrimination against a gay person as already proven.
4.) and thats the problem.. thats the problem with the law and its a huge problem with the failed logic behind your judgments of the situation
5.) yes i get it. Some how its logical to NOT give a "cake" to people for a wedding based on religion and that seems justified because people may feel its a sin. But they should have to give the gay couple an apartment to live in together even if they think its a sin.

very consistent in logic there (sarcasm)

6.) what is right is flowing the same rules as everybody, not breaking the law no infringing on peoples rights and not illegally discriminating
7.) no, those are not the same at all, and there are many places where laws already speak on this issue and sex offenders have rules themselves they must go by. That has nothing to do with a gay couple holy cow lol
rapist =/= gay couple
8.) am as light as can be and having a party is nothing like the point you are now trying to make "getting in to faces" whatever that means
9.) tolerance IS a two way street . . and the RESPECT part has to be equal.

to often the people crying and whining over equal rights, civil rights and antidiscrimination laws are the ones that want no part of equality. they want thier OPPRESSIVE views respected while the other side just wants to have the same rights.

for example its not respectful to illegally discriminate and violate peoples rights nor is that tolerance.
 
Last edited:
Do you like that phrase? I thought it was so descriptive that I borrowed it from Justice Scalia.

You also borrowed it from the Family Rights Council, a group of proven liars and bigots.
 
Refusing to rent an apartment to someone who is gay, is wrong for the same reasons as I stated in the example above. Providing shelter to a gay person isn't an endorsement of their lifestyle or participating in something that is sacrilegious. Now if a gay person said I would like to rent this apartment to host gay sex parties, they deserve to be refused for being such a total moron.

Say a devout Muslim who believes homosexuality is wrong owns a quadriplex and occupies one of the units himself. Does a state law that requires him to rent to homosexuals violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why? And if it is not unconstitutional in that application, what if it required him to rent the other unit in a duplex he occupied to homosexuals? What if he is renting a room in the house he and his family live in? Can the implied constitutional right of privacy include the right to abortion, as the Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade, and yet not include a person's right to privacy at home with his family?

If discrimination against homosexuals is sheer bigotry, why tolerate it at all? Why not require people to include homosexuals in the people they invite to parties in their homes? Why not prohibit the local poker group or book club that meets in a member's house from excluding homosexuals? Why allow a person to discriminate against someone of the same sex in their choice of marriage partners? Would laws that did these things violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why?
 
Say a devout Muslim who believes homosexuality is wrong owns a quadriplex and occupies one of the units himself. Does a state law that requires him to rent to homosexuals violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why? And if it is not unconstitutional in that application, what if it required him to rent the other unit in a duplex he occupied to homosexuals? What if he is renting a room in the house he and his family live in? Can the implied constitutional right of privacy include the right to abortion, as the Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade, and yet not include a person's right to privacy at home with his family?

If discrimination against homosexuals is sheer bigotry, why tolerate it at all? Why not require people to include homosexuals in the people they invite to parties in their homes? Why not prohibit the local poker group or book club that meets in a member's house from excluding homosexuals? Why allow a person to discriminate against someone of the same sex in their choice of marriage partners? Would laws that did these things violate anything in the Constitution? If so, what, exactly, and why?

Grim said it was "wrong" not illegal and never said anyone should be forced to interact with anyone based on the Constitution. Your entire post is hyperbole and does not really address what he said.
 
You also borrowed it from the Family Rights Council, a group of proven liars and bigots.

Really? Unless you are clairvoyant, you have no idea where I borrowed it from. I do not even know what that group is, although from your description I would guess it is made up of statist drones. I saw the phrase in Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, as I recall. He was specifically talking about several members of the Court that he believed had signed onto the homosexual agenda, and I think he is exactly right about that. And Justice Kennedy seems to have signed on very enthusiastically.
 
Grim said it was "wrong" not illegal and never said anyone should be forced to interact with anyone based on the Constitution. Your entire post is hyperbole and does not really address what he said.

No hyperbole about it. Every one of my questions was serious. Nothing is stopping anyone who thinks it's right to rent to homosexuals from doing just that. The more relevant question is whether people who do not want to rent to them in buildings with only a few units, where freedom of association and the right to privacy come into play, can be forced to do it by law.

Apartments and other rental housing are not usually considered public accommodations. But these same issues have been raised by state public accommodations laws. And it is those laws that the RFRA which is the topic of this thread apparently was meant to create a religious-belief exception to.

RFRA's are meant to protect the right to free exercise, which is one more part of the First Amendment, along with the freedoms of speech and association, that public accommodations laws which make sexual preference a protected category may run up against.

Maybe someone else will want to give some thought to the questions I posed.
 
Well then the federal law shouldn't either, I eagerly await your challenge to it.

Keep us updated.

I peg it 60-40 in favor of being upheld, Indiana is in the most consertative appeal court circuit in the country. And SCOTUS will not be reviewing this case. In fact 20 states have similar laws and I've not heard about those laws being challenged. The only people upset about this are the people who cruised around town looking for the one bakery out of ten with bible verses on the door to jack up. Unless you are a trouble maker you have literally no chance of this being a proble

You realize this is the exact same thing same by the bigots back in 2004 when state after state had gay marriage bans right.

Now in june they'll be shown their proper place - the lowest common denominator of hateful worthless trash

This law and the others like it are entirely out of animus for a particular group and therefore are unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time, only indiana's reputation for this, like the south for jim crow, will *never* be forgotten
 
They have been threatened with financial penalty and hardship through legal channels if they do not comply... You can call that what you want, but it doesn't change what it is.

Good, they deserve it. Discrimination is to be abhorred and done away with by any means necessary, not celebrated and enabled by state law.
 
Do I need to guess which party he belongs to, or could I be dead wrong in my first assumption?
 
Good post, Grim. I would say I pretty much agree with you, here.

As long as they actually serve everyone, I would support that.

That isn't what this is about and you should really be able to see thru a politician's lies and that of the FRC, who stood behind the governor as signed the law. Try reading the bill for one. It's impossibly broad. All it says is "burdens religious beliefs." That can be freaking anything, including medical treatment, and it's leaving the courts to act as mind readers in a case by case basis.

This is about hatred of LGBT, period. The only diff is they aren't able to be *quite* as transparent about it as those very same pulpits were in the past

"SB 101 will help protect individuals, Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages and those supporting government recognition and approval of gender identity (male cross-dressers)."

Notice no mention of protection for other religions or of other targeted groups. I guess you must be a fan of repealing the civil rights act too. I mean at least then you're consistent

Oh and it clearly violates "equal protection" and roper v evans, public accommodation laws, as well as anti discrimination laws in 12 counties

If nothing else, i hope this circus and massive disinvestment dissuades other states from attempting the same
 
Last edited:
Do I need to guess which party he belongs to, or could I be dead wrong in my first assumption?

if we go by responses in this thread, i would guess it's a tossup between repub and libertarian
 
It's a down the middle answer for a question that is "Yes" or "No." He's wanting to have it both ways - tell the anti-SSM community that they'll have a weapon to deny service to teh gays ("Yes"), and tell the rest of the country and the business community that the law is not a license to discriminate ("No"). It's one or the other. If it's the former, then there is no "faux" outrage on the part of us leftists. You've been saying it's the latter, "No", but yet defend Pence for his non-response. Like I keep saying, pick a side. There is no middle on that question.

He's a politician. In the past, these very same cast of villains would just openly say "screw the homos," but they slowly realize they can't get away with that, so they conspire to come up with utter bull**** that only the weak minded will fall for

Fortunately, business leaders have acted diligently to back them into a corner of having to choose between upsetting their bigot base, and losing hundreds of millions/billions for their state and creating a talent exodus. We can't relent by accepting ANYTHING these professional liars say.

My terms of their surrender would be: 1) the law is quickly repealed, 2) they beg forgiveness and offer to remove religion from the list of protected class, and 3) they resign from public office forever and these lobbyist groups behind the law shutdown

That *might* convince me of their sincere regret
 
"The business owner, who would not give his name or the name of his business, said he had told some LGBT “people” that equipment was broken in his restaurant and he couldn’t serve them even though it wasn’t and other people were already eating at the tables"


These are the kinds of cowardly bigots the law caters to. They won't even admit they discriminate and lie about the reasons:

One Restaurant Already Celebrated 'Religious Liberty' By Turning Away Gays | ThinkProgress
 
The Illinois law went into effect in 1998, before anyone would have expected the left-wingnuts at the Obama Administration to argue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. that the federal RFRA didn't protect the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) because their company wasn't a "person" that could "exercise religion," even though the legal definition of person in this context was commonly understood to apply to "non-persons" such as corporations:



When it comes to judges who apparently can't read a legal dictionary, you shouldn't leave anything to chance.

And in 1998 there wasn't a big fight over gay marriage. The politics around the issue has completely changed. Which is what this Illinois law is all about. It's revenge against gay marriage becoming illegal all over the country. With this law the concern is how the law will be applied. In 1993 and 1997 there was no concerns.
 
Last edited:
Democrats should push this issue hard in '16.

1]The addition of sexual orientation and identity to the protected classes of the Civil rights legislation.

2] Repeal of the '93 federal RFRA.

States' RFRA would be valid...with the exception that states could no longer discrimination against any of the protected classes.

Hobby Lobby did not argue that the federal government was violating their religious rights under the Constitution...they argued that ACA's requirement was violating the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act...a federal law. By repealing the federal RFRA, it would require that companies like HL would have to argue before the court that a federal provision like ACA violated the business' Constitutional right to exercise of religious beliefs.

Let businesses prove they have a religious right to discriminate under the Constitution... not a federal law.
 
A compelling problem with the Indiana RFRA law, is that Indiana does not have a statewide nondiscrimination law that protects sexual orientation and gender identity similar to civil rights laws forbidding discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, religion, and national origin. In states that do have statewide LGBT nondiscrimination protections, such civil rights laws are viewed by many legal scholars as a "compelling government interest" that trumps the RFRA.

This is why George Stephanopoulos asked Pence yesterday if Indiana legislators plan on adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the state's civil rights laws. Pence's response; "I will not push for that. That's not on my agenda and that's not been the -- that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana."

What we have then, is Pence refusing to even consider a legislative fix that would render the current Indiana RFRA brouhaha a moot point.
 
You mean the ones appointed by the elected officials to deliver justice and protect the constitution? Sorry, but that is better than gerrymandering and pandering politicians who are about as trustworthy as gutter rats (and then I have to apologize to the rats because some of them are more morally upstanding than a lot of big politicians).

None are elected by the voters like lower level judges are. They are basically unaccountable yet make some of the most crucial of decisions.
 
You do realize that is one of major functions of federal judges: to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority? Thus, overriding the wishes of the majority is not necessarily over-stepping; its doing his/her job.

When they pick and choose who is and how they are protected, then we have a problem.
 
Simpleχity;1064475424 said:
A compelling problem with the Indiana RFRA law, is that Indiana does not have a statewide nondiscrimination law that protects sexual orientation and gender identity similar to civil rights laws forbidding discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, religion, and national origin. In states that do have statewide LGBT nondiscrimination protections, such civil rights laws are viewed by many legal scholars as a "compelling government interest" that trumps the RFRA.

This is why George Stephanopoulos asked Pence yesterday if Indiana legislators plan on adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the state's civil rights laws. Pence's response; "I will not push for that. That's not on my agenda and that's not been the -- that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana."

What we have then, is Pence refusing to even consider a legislative fix that would render the current Indiana RFRA brouhaha a moot point.

A question George did not ask...that should be ask and answered is if the state's RFRA disallows cities in Indiana from extending sexual orientation to their city anti-discrimination laws.

My state is a RFRA state and my city has included LGBT persons into the city's ADL. The AG now Gov claimed that was a violation of state law.

I'm sure this issue will be revived. As it should.
 
OK, but your individual motives aren't all that relevant to someone else. When you try to impose your values on those who don't share them, do you expect them to roll over? You (figuratively speaking) certainly aren't, but you want to complain when the LGBT community doesn't want to do business with those who believe they (LGBT) aren't worthy of certain rights available to you, and spends millions to make sure those rights are NOT extended to them?

We're not working from a position of hate or denial, only protecting and maintaining an age old belief system we hold dear.

IMO, the homosexuals hate that belief system and wish it destroyed.
 
I know the religious are being discriminated against now and this law will protect them.

How does a law protect a right in the Constitution?

That is like saying the wax on your car gives you added protection to your seat belts and air bags.
 
Back
Top Bottom