• 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

I don't agree with special exemptions for religious claims either. That's my entire argument. Nobody should be getting special treatment or the right to comply or deny service - on either side.

Either serve everyone, or do what you suggested here (which is a good suggestion, BTW).

Says she doesn't think the religious shouldn't get special exemptions

Supports a law that gives the religious special exemptions
 
Why doesn't the Christian church deny fellowship with those Christians that engage in despicable and sinful behaviors and engaging in heterosexual intercourse.

You should direct that to someone that speaks for whatever Christian church you seem to have in mind.
 
Uh, yeah... this isn't a thing.

You can't know that. Being blind to your straight white cisgender male privilege IS straight white cisgender male privilege.

Why don't you move to Miss-Sippy where this kind of attitude is tolerated?
 
so, are you ok with kicking black people out of restaurants simply for being black if the owner decides on that policy?

Define "okay with."

Should that be legally permissable? Absolutely.

I would also condemn such a policy.


I compare the notion to free speech; I don't have to agree with what you say to agree you have a right to say it.
 
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.

again.. this law protects ones freedom in the private sector and religious institutes to NOT BE FORCED to do something that is against theire religious morals

should a Muslim cake maker be forced to make a cake with Muhammad's picture on it If I walk in and demand one? with bacon and men kissing on it as figurines? or should they be arrested for denying that?
 
Yeah, I can.

Take this hateful stupidity back to the darkest depths of tumblr, where it belongs.

It's not so much hateful as it is stupid.
 
Okay, so you can't produce something that says "in state x you have to serve anyone who walks into your establishment".
I wish it were that easy. To understand the law in a particular state, you can't simply read the statute, you need to be familiar with all of the relevant case law. This is why you're not likely to find a quick and easy summary of how the law works in every state, because to compile and maintain such a record requires a substantial amount of work.

For example, in California you can even walk into a Jewish establishment in Nazi regalia and they cannot (legally) refuse service. This would never be apparent from the statute, but the court decided that someone's Nazi political beliefs are analogous to religion and therefore they could not be denied service.
 
The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation
 
some churches may do that.. certainly not Obamas Rev Wright Church..right?

Do you know Rev. Right's Church? Have you prayed there? How did you come by your knowledge? Did god send an angel to inform you?

Or did you reach around and divinely pull it out your ass?
 
Do you know Rev. Right's Church? Have you prayed there? How did you come by your knowledge? Did god send an angel to inform you?
Or did you reach around and divinely pull it out your ass?

I know a lot about them and BLT.. none of which is steeped in tolerance.. do you know their covenant? I do...
is Farakan a welcome voice inside that church? do you know what Trumpet Magazine is?...
 
I would agree with you on this. ALL of these laws, telling people that they MUST associate with anyone, or telling them that they don't have to associate with anyone are divisive and problematic. Both sets need to be eliminated.

We tried that

It didn't work
 
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.

OK, but you understand no one has a problem with that until it reaches the realm of public policy, such as laws criminalizing consensual sex between adults, or allowing for discrimination, or Constitutional amendments to prohibit the state from extending benefits to same sex couples. It's a huge distinction between using reason or persuasion or whatever to change their lives for the better and enshrining what you believe is "better" into the laws that affect us all.

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

Sure it is, unless the doing of what YOU might label "vile or disgusting" somehow harms you. Sex between consenting adults isn't remotely "vile or disgusting" to me, or gay sex isn't any more "vile and disgusting" as imagining all kinds of people having straight sex. Watching Mitch McConnell having sex? I might gouge my eyes out first...... etc...

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

Missing the point.

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.

Of course, people in those churches have different beliefs, and aren't looking for your approval, or opinion on the prospects of their salvation, same way I imagine you're not looking to them. Religion is intensely personal and there are endless variations within and between religions. All society asks us to do is allow for those differences. There is no 'right' to impose your religious beliefs on others.
 
It's not so much hateful as it is stupid.

I disagree; I think the internet "social justice warrior" crowd is all about virulent hatred for anyone they presume to be "privileged." And something something patriarchy and something something "****lords..."

... I honestly stop listening almost immediately when they start talking.
 
Yeah, I can.

Take this hateful stupidity back to the darkest depths of tumblr, where it belongs.

Nope. :)

By the way. How does it feel to know that attitudes such as yours are literally dying out? :)
 
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.

Its an honest question. Don't see what the hubbub is about Indiana's law, when the same is in effect at the Federal level and in 30 other States over the last 22 years.

I see protests, pulling of company expansions, etc, etc, etc. The NCAA made a statement on the finals in Indianapolis.....but didn't say anything about games held in Kentucky.
 
Nope. :)

By the way. How does it feel to know that attitudes such as yours are literally dying out? :)

How does it feel to declare people are privileged because they're normal? :lamo
 
Lol, yes, it just means normal people that aren't delusional about their gender. It's a stupid term that serves no purpose.

You don't seem to understand, Henrin. At one time, the word "cisgender" would have been pointless and purposeless because it just means "normal". But since homosexuals have decreed that the meaning of normal has to change in order to include all manner of sexual deviance, some other word had to be invented to fill in the void left by the erstwhile meaning of "normal".
 
In the very, very, very slim hope that our less-than-understanding members will choose to open their minds.

p6m2g3c
 
By the way. How does it feel to know that attitudes such as yours are literally dying out? :)

How would it feel if the notion that "normal doesn't need a special word" were dying out?

I'd lament the increasing stupidity of my fellow man, were that the case. I don't think that's the case.
 
again.. this law protects ones freedom in the private sector and religious institutes to NOT BE FORCED to do something that is against theire religious morals

should a Muslim cake maker be forced to make a cake with Muhammad's picture on it If I walk in and demand one? with bacon and men kissing on it as figurines? or should they be arrested for denying that?

So what will be the identifying factor when business owners want to exclude gays as a consumer at their respective business?

Should consumers try not to look gay? Women shouldn't have short hair or men avoid displaying limpish wrists?
 
why did Clinton and Obama sign the same law?..

why cant obama tell us who he meets with at the WH as per standard law practice

It is not the SAME law, as several others have noted on the multiple threads about this boo-boo from Indiana, that was driven by unreasoning hatred and fear.
 
So what will be the identifying factor when business owners want to exclude gays as a consumer at their respective business?

Should consumers try not to look gay? Women shouldn't have short hair or men avoid displaying limpish wrists?

again.. what part of this is confusing.. its not about "the customers rights" its about the rights of the owner based on religious beliefs to simply have the ability to not accept fulfilling an order , without fearing legal action against them...
 
Back
Top Bottom