• 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

So if two dudes walk into My convenient store in Indiana, and I'm an evangelical type, Am I now within the law to assume that they're gay and throw them out. How do I know that they're gay? Should men not visit places of business in pairs now? or Women? What if I toss out two guys that I assume are gay and they're not, can they sue me? Does my religion protect me from making assumptions about people?

thats not the spirit of the law.. and no you dont have to.. but you can choose to not if its against your beliefs..
this llaw is 22 states today and its not much of a problem to mass society
 
Obama, Clinton have backed similar religious-freedom bills


Sponsored Links by
Indiana’s new religious-freedom law, which has prompted calls for a state boycott because it might permit discrimination against gays and lesbians, was made law by a Republican governor and Republican legislature. But the controversy could also ensnare leading Democrats like President Barack Obama, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who previously supported bills with similar effects years ago

snip
Democrats in Bind on Controversial Indiana Religious-Freedom Law

And how does the address what I said? Tell me what my position is on this, Travis. Come on... you LOVE making assumptions based on YOUR agenda. Let's see if you can actually figure out how to debate me on this issue. It starts VERY simply.
 
Your position is that it is just as easy to spot a gay person as a black person. If you are going to be that dishonest then have a nice day.

Just to clarify my point, I'm not sure what meaningful difference it makes that it's harder to identify my brother as gay than a black man. If he lives successfully in the closet, discrimination may not affect his job or commerce and he might be accepted at church and in community positions, etc. But being forced to live in the closet to have a somewhat normal American experience is by itself a type of oppression. And if he's out, then for all kinds of things that really matter - most especially his career or his business, where he can live, which clubs will accept him, etc. - then 100 things will quickly identify him as gay, and therefore expose him to discrimination.
 
And how does the address what I said? Tell me what my position is on this, Travis. Come on... you LOVE making assumptions based on YOUR agenda. Let's see if you can actually figure out how to debate me on this issue. It starts VERY simply.

again...Match is 100% on the target.. that you deflect and name call is not a winning debate style.. but typical liberal emotion without fact
 
again...Match is 100% on the target.. that you deflect and name call is not a winning debate style.. but typical liberal emotion without fact

Match was wrong and misrepresented Grim's position. Your dishonesty on this is standard extreme conservatism... if you don't understand something, lie about it.
 
thats not the spirit of the law.. and no you dont have to.. but you can choose to not if its against your beliefs..
this llaw is 22 states today and its not much of a problem to mass society

So if I think that they're gay, I can arbitrarily toss them out, even though they're not gay? what a stupid thing. Make a law based on individual subjective beliefs that can be used against anyone that you don't like the looks of.
 
So if two dudes walk into My convenient store in Indiana, and I'm an evangelical type, Am I now within the law to assume that they're gay and throw them out. How do I know that they're gay? Should men not visit places of business in pairs now? or Women? What if I toss out two guys that I assume are gay and they're not, can they sue me? Does my religion protect me from making assumptions about people?

How did that physician who refused to treat your gay friend within minutes of Pence signing this law know he was gay? How do all of these business people you said have been treating your friend badly since the 1980s know he's gay?

By the way, what was the physician's name who refused to provide medical treatment to your friend? Surely you found that out by now.
 
So if I think that they're gay, I can arbitrarily toss them out, even though they're not gay? what a stupid thing. Make a law based on individual subjective beliefs that can be used against anyone that you don't like the looks of.

or you can choose to serve them...what part is confusing..but if they asked to make something against your religious beliefs you have the right to say NO..

what part of that is getting you down...?

what if you went into a Muslim restaurant and you wanted bacon and you wanted them to make a bacon cake.. with jewish men kissing..

should they have to make it?
 
Match was wrong and misrepresented Grim's position. Your dishonesty on this is standard extreme conservatism... if you don't understand something, lie about it.

again.. he didnt do either of those.. he posed questions on what they had stated and he was right..you got annoyed it didnt fit your narrative anad whined he was "off topic" when he was not.. a typical liberal play when boxed into a corner
 
Last edited:
again.. he didnt do either of those.. he posed questions on what they had stated and he was right..you got annoyed it didnt fit your narrative anad whined he was "off topic" when he wa not.. a typical liberal play when boxed into a corner

Yes, he misrepresented Grim's position with hyperbole... and you jumped on the bandwagon because it fit your "anti-liberal, disagreement" agenda. This is standard extreme conservative dishonesty, denial, and diversion.

I've noticed that you have also refused to address my question/challenge. My guess is because you are unable to, since it would require you to actually think critically about another's position, rather than assigning them a position based on your own agenda, which is all that you do. Typical extreme conservative. When challenged, they run.
 
Yes, he misrepresented Grim's position with hyperbole... and you jumped on the bandwagon because it fit your "anti-liberal, disagreement" agenda. This is standard extreme conservative dishonesty, denial, and diversion.

I've noticed that you have also refused to address my question/challenge. My guess is because you are unable to, since it would require you to actually think critically about another's position, rather than assigning them a position based on your own agenda, which is all that you do. Typical extreme conservative. When challenged, they run.

again.. you are wrong he was right.. and Match was ON TOPIC... Its shame you dont get the subject better.. I dont care what your meandering positions are and Id ask you to stay on topic..

Quote what part of Matchs post ( questions) you didnt understand..
 
translation: a contradiction still cant be shown, thats what i thought

1.) thats not a choice its a fact.
if they were JUST Christian then nothing happens but since they are criminals something does, Logic 101 LOL
2.) his claim keeps being made and this game keep sbeing played but cant it support it with one fact

fact remains
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota

The contradiction, despite the semantics, is obvious
 
Jesus often ate dinner with criminals. Jesus ate with prostitutes. But, I'm not aware that Jesus said jack about not selling a cake to a gay person. Pence and his paranoid legislators would actually do something positive if they permitted food establishments not to sell fattening food to fatties. Gluttony is a biblical sin. As such the paranoid practitioners of protestantism could get their discrimination fix while helping to trim populace, reduce health care costs and save lives.

Here's my point, if a person is going to get all butt hurt about his faith then that person had best carry his hatred across the board and apply hate equally as dictated by their particular religion. Gluttony is a sin. Interestingly enough it is usually members of churches that practice strict interpretation of sin who have the fattest congregations.

Is there a biblical sin list where LGBT is ranked? I haven't seen one. Might we then be urged to love the fat people but hate pizza and chocolate easter eggs? No, probably not. There's simply too many fat people to seriously begin hating them.
Yes, He likened them to being sock, in need of a doctor
 
again.. you are wrong he was right.. and Match was ON TOPIC... Its shame you dont get the subject better.. I dont care what your meandering positions are and Id ask you to stay on topic..

Quote what part of Matchs post ( questions) you didnt understand..

I understand that you don't get the issue. Your position is just to disagree with any liberal and agree with any conservative. It's all that you do. The issue has NOTHING to do with match's questions... I have been completely clear about that. He quoted Grim and applied a position to Grim of which Grim did not have. THAT is dishonest and hyperbolic and what I have been saying. You, of course, have attempted to divert from the issue. I have now clarified it for you YET again. Let's watch you get it wrong YET again and divert from the issue since you are incapable of disagreeing with a conservative.
 
How did that physician who refused to treat your gay friend within minutes of Pence signing this law know he was gay? How do all of these business people you said have been treating your friend badly since the 1980s know he's gay?

By the way, what was the physician's name who refused to provide medical treatment to your friend? Surely you found that out by now.

My friend visited a clinic in Marion Indiana for nothing serious he says. After filling out a standard questionaire, in his words he was "strongly recommended another clinic" Do you really think that businesses are NOT going to be using this BS law to jettison those who are gay or those that they don't like the looks of. Especially right center smack dab in Central WASP Indiana. I've spent a great deal of time in Fairmount Indiana, I've seen what they deal with. I get stink eye from the locals for the way that I look. And this law is just what the locals will use to make their feelings "extra known" to them.
 
My friend visited a clinic in Marion Indiana for nothing serious he says. After filling out a standard questionaire, in his words he was "strongly recommended another clinic" Do you really think that businesses are NOT going to be using this BS law to jettison those who are gay or those that they don't like the looks of. Especially right center smack dab in Central WASP Indiana. I've spent a great deal of time in Fairmount Indiana, I've seen what they deal with, And this law is just what the locals will use to make their feelings "extra known" to them.


You ever think maybe they just couldnt help him period with what ailed him?.. I had that happen at a walk in emergency dental place.. they said "we cant help you" and I had to go to another.. they didnt have what I needed at that time

I do not believe your story as Drs are cut from a cloth of caring and compassion.. I simply dont think you are telling the whole story but a narrative
 
Last edited:
I understand that you don't get the issue. Your position is just to disagree with any liberal and agree with any conservative. It's all that you do. The issue has NOTHING to do with match's questions... I have been completely clear about that. He quoted Grim and applied a position to Grim of which Grim did not have. THAT is dishonest and hyperbolic and what I have been saying. You, of course, have attempted to divert from the issue. I have now clarified it for you YET again. Let's watch you get it wrong YET again and divert from the issue since you are incapable of disagreeing with a conservative.

quote what Match said that you claim to not understand and called hyperbole so I can assist you to understand..
 
My friend visited a clinic in Marion Indiana for nothing serious he says. After filling out a standard questionaire, in his words he was "strongly recommended another clinic" Do you really think that businesses are NOT going to be using this BS law to jettison those who are gay or those that they don't like the looks of. Especially right center smack dab in Central WASP Indiana. I've spent a great deal of time in Fairmount Indiana, I've seen what they deal with. I get stink eye from the locals for the way that I look. And this law is just what the locals will use to make their feelings "extra known" to them.

So in other words, no physician declined medical treatment to your gay friend because he was gay, which is what you claimed the other day.
 
or you can choose to serve them...what part is confusing..but if they asked to make something against your religious beliefs you have the right to say NO..

what part of that is getting you down...?

what if you went into a Muslim restaurant and you wanted bacon and you wanted them to make a bacon cake.. with jewish men kissing..

should they have to make it?

There should NOT be a law to have it as an option for Me to serve them or not. It's wrong to arbitrarily remove potential customers that you don't like the looks of for whatever personal prejudices that you have. What if I go to Burger King and demand a Big-Mac? Your analogy isn't relevant. You don't go into places of businesses asking for products that they don't provide and that has nothing to do with if it's right or not to kick out people that you don't like the looks of.
 
Religious freedom. Homosexuals hate it. But they'll just have to get used to it because it's a constitutional right. Indiana is within their rights to pass this law and homosexual are within their rights to throw a hissy fit, stomp their feet, call for political action, boycotts and anything short of physical aggression like eye scratching and hair pulling. Eventually, they'll wear themselves out and get over it. I'm surprised anyone considers this news.
 
And it's the same thing as kicking a woman out for being woman, and it's the same thing as kicking a handicapped person out for being handicapped, and it's the same thing as kicking an elderly man out because he's elderly, and it's the same thing as kicking a Japanese American out because he's Japanese American. We can come up with all the comparisons in the world. Fun!

the state shouldn't scansion any of those, either. we once had an America in which restaurant owners could kick out people of different races for not being white. that sucked. we fixed it, and it was hard. now these assholes want to do something like that again. no. no, you cannot kick a gay person out of your restaurant for being gay. we don't do that here anymore. that isn't America.
 
Bull crap. There are ways for all the ignorant bigots, religious zealots and other douche bags to set up businesses so they can only deal with like minded morons.


so happy for your non biased fair view of this

you dont have to like, or understand religion....

but how about some tolerance from your side?

you all want that from everyone else.....

how about just a little back......and seeing this from the eyes of those who dont believe what you believe

and when businesses have been open for decades, and passed from one generation to another.....it isnt always feasible to set it up as a something else
 
I pose this scenario again

" a Jewish or Christian man walks into a Muslim restaurant and says " I want bacon now, and I want you to make me a bacon cake with two men kissing on it for my wedding"...

should the Muslim owner have to make them " a bacon cake with men kissing on it"..????.

this is quite a question to a liberal...

to me the answer is NO.. the Muslim owner should be free to say " Im sorry, its against my religion, there is a nice butcher down the street that Im sure will make it for you.. have a nice day"


thats the spirit of the law..
 
Back
Top Bottom