• 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

"Righteous" is subjective, and you just did precisely what I said. BOTH sides have legitimate positions on this issue. The problem is the application of those issues.

The Indianapolis Mayor just issued an executive order overriding this state law. He is a GOP and sees the countless millions already lost due to conventions pulling out.

Meanwhile Pence and the legislature are in complete damage control ahead of the NCAA Basketball Final Four this coming weekend, trying to tweak the law .
 
Last edited:
I must have come in when you were leaving. I moved to Fairfield County in 1995. I moved back to Ohio in 2011. And not a moment too soon. To borrow a line from Samuel Clemens, if I owned Connecticut and I owned hell, I'd rent out Connecticut and live in hell.

Love that line!! Too funny.

CT was great as far as lots to do and see, great area, but between the politics (ugh) and the taxes (ugh x 2), we also couldn't get out fast enough.
 
If you are straight and cisgender, then you have the privilege of making comments such as these. You are completely dismissing the legitimate concerns of LGBTs, who have to deal with homophobia and genderphobia every day of their lives. As such, your holier-than-thou attitude does not deserve to be listened to. It only deserves to be stood up.

ridiculous... your post shows no respect of others religious views...
 
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.



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?

The 'war' is for the mind not physically harming or jailing anyone...convincing sinners to change their lives for the better so they may have eternal life in Christ.

Individual freedom is not getting to do whatever you want and certainly not things most find vile or disgusting.

Jesus is a respected prophet in the Koran so, it's not just for Christians benefit.

Most churches except anyone as a member but, not convincing them to give up their sinful life is what I'm speaking of. Simply going to church will not save you spiritually.
 
Just don't understand why someone would be so opposed to hunting while making a living selling meat from slaughterhouses. But that's a subject for another thread.


You're the one who claimed "you can deny service to anyone for any reason"


State public accommodations laws - which is why I say things like "typically," "usually," and "most if not all" because I don't know the law in every state.

A cleaning service is not "a place of public accommodation."

I said you can deny service for any reason except if it's someone of the protected class. In fact, I said that repeatedly.

Okay, so you can't produce something that says "in state x you have to serve anyone who walks into your establishment".
 
Jesus often ate dinner with criminals. Jesus ate with prostitutes.

Jesus also said sin no more.Jesus ate with those people to try to convert them.

Mark 2:16-17
16When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?" 17And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
 
In this country, they are not beyond political and monetary influence. If they can't be recalled or.fired they are susceptible.

No, the problem is there that bad judicial decisions cannot be reversed on appeal. That makes the power of a judge far too great IMHO. No judicial decision should be beyond reproach in the criminal justice system. In the Netherlands no legal decision of any seriousness is made by just 1 judge but by 3 judges. Afterwards both the prosecution and the defense can appeal that decision and if they still feel the decision has been made on unlawful grounds they can go to our version of the supreme court and have it overturned and kicked back to a lower court to redo the trial.

I still do not think that judges should be beholden to anyone except the law and should not make decisions with elections on their mind because that just is very unhealthy from a legal point of view.
 
Homosexuals just don't appreciate the opportunity this bill provides for them. They can create a religion of their own like the Church of the Great Holy Phallus or some such thing and then refuse to serve those despicable breeders that are an affront to their religion because they engage in despicable and sinful behaviors like attending traditional Christian churches and engaging in heterosexual intercourse.
 
Jesus also said sin no more.Jesus ate with those people to try to convert them.

Mark 2:16-17
16When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?" 17And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus did not avoid them. That is precisely the point. He associated with them. Indiana has legalized doing just the opposite. And in the name of Jesus and his love.
 
Jesus did not avoid them. That is precisely the point. He associated with them. Indiana has legalized doing just the opposite. And in the name of Jesus and his love.

Are you of the opinion that the Federal Government and the other 30 states that have similar law or case law have also legalized discrimination in the name of religious freedom?
 
Jesus did not avoid them. That is precisely the point. He associated with them. Indiana has legalized doing just the opposite. And in the name of Jesus and his love.

what part of respecting others religious views do the gays not get? I think its just radical side of the LBGTmovement again over stepping others freedoms..
 
Are you of the opinion that the Federal Government and the other 30 states that have similar law or case law have also legalized discrimination in the name of religious freedom?

Nope. I am not. Cite me some, please.
 
Nope. I am not. Cite me some, please.

19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting - The Washington Post
The same law is on the books in 19 States, the Federal government(1993), and in-effect through case law in 11 other States. How is Indiana's legalizing discrimination, but these other 31 instances are not?

Furthermore, can you show a case where RFRA was leveraged to win a discrimination case? Here are 10 cases, but they don't align with your viewpoint: 10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's
 
19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting - The Washington Post
The same law is on the books in 19 States, the Federal government(1993), and in-effect through case law in 11 other States. How is Indiana's legalizing discrimination, but these other 31 instances are not?

I am hearing this question pop up. But I cannot yet tell whether it is a defensive question or an honest question. Perhaps it could be either, or both, depending on who is asking it.
 
"Normal" doesn't need a special word for it.

This isn't tumblr.

Stop. Your cisgender privilege allows you to make these ignorant comments.
 
Homosexuals just don't appreciate the opportunity this bill provides for them. They can create a religion of their own like the Church of the Great Holy Phallus or some such thing and then refuse to serve those despicable breeders that are an affront to their religion because they engage in despicable and sinful behaviors like attending traditional Christian churches and engaging in heterosexual intercourse.

Why doesn't the Christian church deny fellowship with those Christians that engage in despicable and sinful behaviors and engaging in heterosexual intercourse.
 
what part of respecting others religious views do the gays not get? I think its just radical side of the LBGTmovement again over stepping others freedoms..

To what end do you believe such laws serve the public at large when there is civil rights language in most states and federal law, which is to the contrary to zealot religious legislation? Think the S.C. will just look the other way?

Are tattoos on gays similar to those put on Jews who were encamped during WWII the next logical move for states like Indiana?

Or how about microchip implants for all gays. That way chip detection alarms can be installed in door ways of business who choose to impose their bigoted views on potential consumers who are gay...or may those who have green eyes, a different religion, skin color...etc. than that of the business owners.
 
Why doesn't the Christian church deny fellowship with those Christians that engage in despicable and sinful behaviors and engaging in heterosexual intercourse.

some churches may do that.. certainly not Obamas Rev Wright Church..right?
 
The state should do its job and protect the private property rights of its citizens. It doesn't have to "sanction" anything by letting free people make choices about who they want to associate with and who they want to hold custom with.

so, are you ok with kicking black people out of restaurants simply for being black if the owner decides on that policy?
 
Why doesn't the Christian church deny fellowship with those Christians that engage in despicable and sinful behaviors and engaging in heterosexual intercourse.

The Church routinely goes to the incarcerated and prays with child rapists and murderers.

And for the love of God...please don't use the rationale that they have stopped sinning. The only people that have stopped sinning are dead people.
 
Back
Top Bottom