• 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

way to not answer the questions
and show your bigotry, to boot


I know you won't answer this, but what would God think of you CAPITALIZING 'Homosexuals'?
{I know what astute forum posters will note about you shifting away from 'the homos'}

Since when was God worried about capitalization. It's the name of a group of people.

I also understand it irks some because it make reference to 'sex'. :0
 
Evangelicals seem unable to separate the two...sin from sinner. Because most of their hate and discrimination is aimed right at the sinner. A sin can not order a cake. A sin can not order flowers.


Sounds like a plight of conscience.

The silly part is this is over cake and flowers.
 
Last edited:
And what about the person denied access to society simply because someone doesn't like who they are and not because of their character?

What sort of free society do they live in knowing that they stand an incredible likelihood being denied access to the basic structures that you people associate with freedom and liberty?

Libertarians understand only a small portion of what freedom actually means. Their obliviousness to culture only ensures that minorities (race, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation) who are not liked by culture will be second class citizens at best.

Denied access to society? Who in this country is denied access to society, except the poor people who are being locked up by relatives and caretakers and kidnappers?

Libertarians are debating in this thread, yes, and if you don't care for their posts, you need to take it up with them. I'm not debating what political parties see and say. I'm talking about this law.
 
Since when was God worried about capitalization. It's the name of a group of people.

I also understand it irks some because it make reference to 'sex'. :0
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."


I dunno, kinda seems important in granting divine ascribation.
 
A

It hurt business here when Brewer signed the bill. A year later it was felt. Big new convention center and no one using it or hotels or golf courses.

And the tourism revenue in Arizona is up.

If you're talking about the Phoenix Convention Center, the bookings have gone up every year from the year they went down, and they also attribute that to the competition from the other new convention centers, including the ones in San Diego and a few other western cities, which have remained flat in bookings.

It had an impact because people want to make a "statement". I guess Brewer and Pence are politicians who don't respond to threats or bribes of revenue in order to pass laws that they believe in.
 
Christians don't 'tolerate' sin. They forgive the sinner. As a matter of fact they wage war on sin.

IMO, 'some' Christians [and those of other faiths] have become way too submissive in regards to 'tolerating' sin.

I'm really not sure what you're saying. Should gays be criminalized and jailed in this "war?" Is it OK to fire them from their jobs for being gay, ostracized from normal society? Denied service at restaurants? Etc.

But you're illustrating pretty well the intolerance that gays want to "destroy." Essentially, your religious beliefs are yours and those who adhere to similar values. In a theocracy, you get to impose those views on all others. In our diverse society that values individual freedom, the right to worship your God, other gods, or no god at all is pretty high on our list of national values.

Jesus was crucified to take away our sins but, he said to go forth and sin NO MORE. Apparently some forgot that part.

To be blunt, what Jesus said only matters to Christians, and there is obviously a pretty large variation among Christians on what constitutes a sin. As you know there are churches who accept homosexuals. My gay brother has gone to church his entire life. Do you get veto power over those churches?
 
1.) repeat it all you want the answer and the facts wont change
2.) same thing i call it when ANYBODY is goes to court and fined for breaking the laws. Criminals getting caught
3.) yes that is Criminals being subjectively negatively affected by thier own decisions
thats not CHRISTIANS being negatively effected because of thier Chrisitianty

i repeat because the facts havent changed:
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota
Then you self contradicted. I merely wanted to set the record straight. Thank you
 
And you have a bias in support of religion, see how this works out? I agree, best not to discuss it.
Let's call it a bias in favor of liberty
 
This is just another exercise in dumbassery. This time it was the Indiana Teabaggers.

Here is what I'd do in Indiana. So I run a business in Indiana and a vocal and known Teabagger politico comes into my establishment. **** him. I happen to support civil rights for all people. I would refuse any state legislator who voted for the bill discriminating against gays and lesbians. I would refuse their business on the basis that the said legislative customer was gay. Let them take that to the press!

You can decline service to anyone already. You don't need to make a dramatic stance to do it.
 
A lot of people who are not proponents of the homosexual agenda would say it is homosexuals who want special treatment.


So...

1. A gay couple walks into a baker to order a wedding cake, the law provides the baker can use religion as a means to refuse service.

2. Two weeks later the baker and his wife walk into a antique shop owned by the gay couple and the gay couple refuses to serve the baker because of the bakers religions beliefs.​



In event #1 the baker will be exempt from Public Accommodation laws because he acted on his religious beliefs, on the other hand the gay couple would be charged under the Public Accommodation law (if sexual orientation is covered by that State's law) and the complaint would proceed. They of course being in violation of both State and Federal law.

Seems to me it the religious that are asking for the special treatment, i.e. Public Accommodation laws which are laws of general applicability that regulate commerce.




>>>>
 
So...

1. A gay couple walks into a baker to order a wedding cake, the law provides the baker can use religion as a means to refuse service.

2. Two weeks later the baker and his wife walk into a antique shop owned by the gay couple and the gay couple refuses to serve the baker because of the bakers religions beliefs.​



In event #1 the baker will be exempt from Public Accommodation laws because he acted on his religious beliefs, on the other hand the gay couple would be charged under the Public Accommodation law (if sexual orientation is covered by that State's law) and the complaint would proceed. They of course being in violation of both State and Federal law.

Seems to me it the religious that are asking for the special treatment, i.e. Public Accommodation laws which are laws of general applicability that regulate commerce.




>>>>



more eloquent and succinct than many other versions I've read.

nice.
 
The silly part is this is over cake and flowers.

Nah, its just a way for the left to deflect all the negative news looking to create an issue out of nothing. This was put out by USA, using a Pro Gay Rights Law Professor. He just helped the LGBT crowd and Its Advocates to see the light.
slap2.gif






To further quell the left's hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA. I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?


The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law. Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration. But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis......snip~

Oh Dear: The Liberal Hysteria Over Indiana
 
Last edited:
if someone is being a complete asshole in your restaurant, i have no problem with you asking them to leave. but you shouldn't be allowed to kick out racial minorities or gay people just for being racial minorities or gay people. we tried it that way for a while, and it was a ****ing disaster.

If the owner of a restaurant was black, and in came a bunch of skinheads, would you oppose his right to decline service to them?
 
I don't know what an ADL is, but feel free to point out a case where RFRA was successfully used to justify whatever discrimination you are referring to.

The intent of the law is pretty straightforward, since the same Federal law doesn't apply to most instances in the individual States. I don't know why you feel its directed at LGBT. Sounds like you are projecting your prejudices upon others.

The inconvenient thing is bill proponents in Indiana include some very vocal critics of homosexuals and SSM, and they were telling their supporters the goal was to provide them a tool to "protect" them from supporters of SSM. Now you're telling me we should assume they were lying. I don't think they were - they're smart people, well funded, well organized, and they have enough influence to be among those invited to the signing of the Indiana law, and in that central circle, close enough to reach out and touch Pence in the picture.
 
Nah, its just a way for the left to deflect all the negative news looking to create an issue out of nothing. This was put out by USA, using a Pro Gay Rights Law Professor. He just helped the LGBT crowd and Its Advocates to see the light.
slap2.gif






To further quell the left's hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA. I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?


The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law. Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration. But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis......snip~

Oh Dear: The Liberal Hysteria Over Indiana

It's difficult to argue that it's not about discriminating against gays when the people who wrote it are some of th most vocal anti-gay bigots the state.

also when amendments to clarify that by issue were struck down by the lawmakers. If it's not about discriminating, why did they block anti-discrimination language from the bill?
 
None are elected by the voters like lower level judges are. They are basically unaccountable yet make some of the most crucial of decisions.

Being elected does not mean they are better judges, in fact I think they are possibly even (or should I say most likely) better than chosen judges because they do not have to pander to the special interests and the people who bankroll their elections. Judges should not be elected IMHO, they should uphold the law, not be in the pockets of the biggest political sponsors or political parties. Judges need to be totally independent.
 
So...

1. A gay couple walks into a baker to order a wedding cake, the law provides the baker can use religion as a means to refuse service.

2. Two weeks later the baker and his wife walk into a antique shop owned by the gay couple and the gay couple refuses to serve the baker because of the bakers religions beliefs.​



In event #1 the baker will be exempt from Public Accommodation laws because he acted on his religious beliefs, on the other hand the gay couple would be charged under the Public Accommodation law (if sexual orientation is covered by that State's law) and the complaint would proceed. They of course being in violation of both State and Federal law.

Seems to me it the religious that are asking for the special treatment, i.e. Public Accommodation laws which are laws of general applicability that regulate commerce.




>>>>

They should have the option under scenario #2 to decline the offer of doing business with the couple. If you know someone hates you and/or your lifestyle, and it makes you uncomfortable dealing with them, you should have the right to walk away from the offer. That's why I think the law need to be updated or made right. In both cases I support the right of the business owner to not be forced into commerce.
 
They should have the option under scenario #2 to decline the offer of doing business with the couple. If you know someone hates you and/or your lifestyle, and it makes you uncomfortable dealing with them, you should have the right to walk away from the offer. That's why I think the law need to be updated or made right. In both cases I support the right of the business owner to not be forced into commerce.

And when the only pharmacy for 60 miles puts up a "no Jews" sign in the window, what then?
 
"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

Best guess is that was a homosexual pretending to be a restaurant owner, a false flag if you will. Like that black professor who trashed her own car with racial epithets painted on it and claimed it was done by racists
 
Back
Top Bottom