• 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

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.

incorrect....
 
The Left's attempt to silence any opposition to their godless pro-gay marriage agenda, etc., is nothing short of liberal McCarthyism.

It's Not Political Correctness but Brutal Liberal McCarthyism | Human Events

Excerpts from the link:

"The phrase “political correctness” falls short of describing what is actually Liberal McCarthyism, an ideological position using brutal tools and tactics to silence the American majority. By controlling speech, they control our spheres of life. It should be understood that no matter what is said and no matter how benign and how “sensitively” expressed, the Left will brand any comment or sentence mean-spirited if it differs from their agenda and goal of reshaping America

"Whereas Joe McCarthy targeted a few individuals, today’s Liberal McCarthyism is attempting to disenfranchise the 100 million or so that constitute the majority and middle class. And while Joe McCarthy caused a few in Hollywood to be blacklisted, today’s liberal McCarthyites are trying to destroy an entire culture, value system, and Judeo-Christian ethos, not to mention the traditional family itself."

The battle is joined, and we're not going away.
 
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...

I get that. But one isn't mutually exclusive of the other.

How do business owners decide to exclude a consumer based on a religious belief? What criteria or method will they use to discriminate? Your Muslin example won't be near as blatant when it comes to discriminating against all who they claim violates their religious beliefs.

Consumers will learn to work around bigoted business owners.
 
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.

i don't agree that kicking black people out of restaurants for being black should be ok.
 
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.

the additional language in the Indiana bill is to protect individuals from civil suits, where some courts have inappropriately applied public accommodation laws to non-public accommodation business. I believe there was a case in New Mexico.
 
i don't agree that kicking black people out of restaurants for being black should be ok.

I don't think it's "okay."

I also don't think it should be illegal.
 
I get that. But one isn't mutually exclusive of the other.

How do business owners decide to exclude a consumer based on a religious belief? What criteria or method will they use to discriminate? Your Muslin example won't be near as blatant when it comes to discriminating against all who they claim violates their religious beliefs.

Consumers will learn to work around bigoted business owners.


its mutually exclusive......

so again.. why dont you go into a Muslim Cake maker and ask for a cake with bacon and a picture of Muhammad on it with men kissing..

let us know how it goes... and if they deny you you better make a major issue out of it.. your rights had been taken by the Muslims that denied it..

Right?
 
i don't agree that kicking black people out of restaurants for being black should be ok.

There is a difference between something being ok and that something being legal. I hope I don't need to explain to you the difference.
 
i don't agree that kicking black people out of restaurants for being black should be ok.

so you are not OK with Rev Wright and the BLT teachings that Obama adhered to ?
 
its mutually exclusive......

so again.. why dont you go into a Muslim Cake maker and ask for a cake with bacon and a picture of Muhammad on it with men kissing..

let us know how it goes... and if they deny you you better make a major issue out of it.. you rights had been taken by the Muslims that denied it..

I prefer the money...over bigotry. But that's just me.
 
Anyone who says the RFRA bill isn't intended to discriminate against gay citizens ain't paying attention

Here's a picture/comment from GLAAD

View attachment 67182478

For 'some' reason, the governor's office is refusing to release names of those who attended the bill signing

Can't imagine why not????

I thought this was funny, from your article:

Those three, with their connections to a vast network of conservative churches, led a failed effort last year to ban same-sex marriage in Indiana’s constitution. The governor has tried to distance the religious freedom legislation from that issue.

He's tried to distance the RFRA from that issue by inviting the major proponents of the SSM ban to the signing and placed them within arm reach of the Gov. "Promise - this has nothing to do with teh gays. What those guys standing RIGHT THERE behind me said about it? Ignore it..... " :lamo
 
I prefer the money...over bigotry. But that's just me.

stop deflecting..

why dont you go and do that.. go to a Muslim neighborhood in Detroit and demand that bacon cake with Muhammad's picture on it with gay men kissing as figurines.. and then throw a fit when they dont make it.. YOU BEEN JOBBED!!!!!!
 
Okay, so you can't produce something that says "in state x you have to serve anyone who walks into your establishment".
Look at it this way. A judge might approach this with very same concern that you have - what sense does it make to protect people based on race, but not one of the million other classifications that might arise?

In the case of Blonde vs. Get Out, Inc., the judge may ask the question, if we do not allow discrimination based on something as arbitrary as skin color, why should we allow discrimination based on something so arbitrary as hair color? If the defendents have not answered that question, if there is no legitimate business interest in denying service to blondes, the court may very well (and likely will) rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

Now, you may disagree with this, but that doesn't stop it from happening.
 
stop deflecting..

why dont you go and do that.. go to a Muslim neighborhood in Detroit and demand that bacon cake with Muhammad on it with gay men kissing as figurines.. and then throw a fit when they dont make it.. YOU BEEN JOBBED!!!!!!

Yes, I would be deprived from bigots. Not robbed. Well, as long as they don't take or keep my money.
 
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.

incorrect....

What is it with some people being so sure they are right(correct) even when it is easily shown that they really don't have the foggiest clue about reality?

THE difference between the federal RFRA and the Indiana one is the ever so small fact that the Indiana law specifically allows private individuals, partnerships, corporations, etc. to cite religious beliefs as a defense in a discrimination case when they have discriminated. The federal law is intended to allow individuals, partnerships, corporations, etc. to cite religious beliefs as a defense when they claim they have been discriminated against.

One allows discrimination - Indiana's law. The other - the federal RFRA, allows a defendant to claim religious reasons for violating a law or ordinance - in other words, the right to bring suit against a government body. The original case related to a Native American being fired from his job because a drug test found peyote in his system. The Supreme Court denied his defense that taking peyote was part of his religious beliefs, for which we have multiple attestations.
 
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.

If that's true (about Cali - I don't live there so I don't know), then that's disgraceful. A Jewish man should be able to decide he doesn't want to engage in service with someone in Nazi regalia. That's exactly the kind of slippery slope I'm talking about.
 
Yes, I would be deprived from bigots. Not robbed. Well, as long as they don't take or keep my money.

incorrect.. they are NOT BIGOTS.. you are asking them to violate their religion...they shoudl have ther right to say "no" long as its not a life saving situation...

if anyone is s bigot its the costumer demanding they have to defile their religious belief..
 
stop deflecting..

why dont you go and do that.. go to a Muslim neighborhood in Detroit and demand that bacon cake with Muhammad's picture on it with gay men kissing as figurines.. and then throw a fit when they dont make it.. YOU BEEN JOBBED!!!!!!

That's an interesting comparison.

Christian bakers = Muslims from Detroit?

Huh, who woulda guessed.
 
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.

wow

you guys need to be writing science fiction

you are taking this thing to the nth degree

some of you missed your calling.....
 
the additional language in the Indiana bill is to protect individuals from civil suits, where some courts have inappropriately applied public accommodation laws to non-public accommodation business. I believe there was a case in New Mexico.

Yep -- and the one discriminating lost. Elane Photograph v. Willock, the state Supreme Court would not allow a photographer to use the state’s RFRA law as a defense
 
incorrect.. they are NOT BIGOTS.. you are asking them to violate their religion...they shoudl have ther right to say "no" long as its not a life saving situation...

Yes, I am. If they want to violate my civil rights...correct, I'm doing just that.
 
Back
Top Bottom