• 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

Simpleχity;1064479888 said:
Neighboring Illinois has a RFRA law. But it also has a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Texas and Missouri have RFRA laws. But they have sections in their RFRA laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.

Indiana has no such statewide/RFRA protections. Indiana legislators rejected such protections when deliberating the Indiana RFRA law.

One has to ask ... why?
Click to expand...

I have to ask for more details about your claims. What, exactly, are the sections in the Texas and Missouri RFRA's you claim prohibit that sort of discrimination, and just how do they do it? RFRA's are not anti-discrimination laws.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) what citzens are in danger of that when the constitution and nondiscrimination laws already do that
2.) no not what ever a person wants but does it in fact offer the possible ablity to illegal discriminating based on feelings and not have it be illegal any more. Yes.

so again i ask, My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

before the bill i couldnt illegally discriminate and violate the rights of people using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc
before the bill people couldnt illegally discriminate against me and violate my rights using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc

after the bill, now the possibility exists
Click to expand...

you couldn't illegally discriminate before, and you can't illegally discriminate after. What you now have is a potential defense for your illegal actions, with a judge being the arbiter. I've yet to see a case in the 30 states that similar laws where someone used RFRA as a defense for practicing discrimination.

I have seen cases where RFRA was used to prove other laws(not having to do with anti-discrimination) were too burdensome on some religious practices. States were required to make their own RFRA when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal law didn't apply to States and cities.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) since its written you dont know how im saying, that would be a observation assumed or made up
2.) i will
odd you never answered the questions or addressed what i said though

the best part of that is none of that changes the fact of my original post of the facts presented here

is there some point you had? is your subjective opinion of such, which you are more than welcome to have, relevant in any way to the topic or does it impact it in anyway?
Click to expand...

No. Not odd. That wasn't the direction I was going with this.
 
JANFU said:
This law is not comparable to other states that have similar laws.
Discrimination is discrimination under the guise of Religious rights.
Click to expand...

This analysis from a law professor, skilled in the law, seems to differ from your assessment.

So the most controversial aspect of the Indiana law was endorsed by the Holder Justice Department. [Update: I should stress that at the time, DOJ limited the applicability of RFRA to “religious organizations,” such as Wheaton College. But following Hobby Lobby this position is no longer tenable.]

There here we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA. In contrast, Mississippi’s RFRA, which only requires a “burden,” not a “substantial” one, deviates significantly from the federal statute.

I should stress–and this point was totally lost in the Indiana debate–that RFRA does not provide immunity. It only allows a defendant to raise a defense, which a finder of fact must consider, like any other defense that can be raised under Title VII or the ADA. RFRA is *not* a blank check to discriminate.
Click to expand...
Comparing the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA | Josh Blackman's Blog

And who is this guy?

Josh is an Assistant Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. Josh is the author of the critically acclaimed Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare.
Josh was selected by Forbes Magazine for the “30 Under 30″ in Law and Policy.Josh has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of executive action on immigration. Josh is the founder and President of the Harlan Institute, the founder of FantasySCOTUS, the Internet’s Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League, and blogs at JoshBlackman.com. Josh leads the cutting edge of legal analytics as Director of Judicial Research at LexPredict. Josh is the author of over two dozen law review articles, and his commentary has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, L.A. Times, and other national publications.
Josh clerked for the Honorable Danny J. Boggs on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and for the Honorable Kim R. Gibson on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Josh is a graduate of the George Mason University School of Law.
Click to expand...
About Josh | Josh Blackman's Blog

Between what you say and what Josh here says, thanks, but I'll go with Josh.
 
Samhain said:
1.)you couldn't illegally discriminate before, and you can't illegally discriminate after.
2.) What you now have is a potential defense for your illegal actions, with a judge being the arbiter.
3.) I've yet to see a case in the 30 states that similar laws where someone used RFRA as a defense for practicing discrimination.
4.) I have seen cases where RFRA was used to prove other laws(not having to do with anti-discrimination) were too burdensome on some religious practices. States were required to make their own RFRA when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal law didn't apply to States and cities.
Click to expand...

1.) false what was considered illegal discrimination before, now in some case may no longer be based on feelings
2.) already had this before . . but again what used to be illegal discrimination maybe be found to be legal based on my feelings
3.) well they arent all alike and that would be your opinion
4.) which could have been done before also but without the reference to this

so again im still left wondering (based on the context of my conversation with another poster)
My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

and

before the bill i couldnt illegally discriminate and violate the rights of people using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc
before the bill people couldnt illegally discriminate against me and violate my rights using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc

after the bill, now the possibility exists that it will not be found illegal based on feelings
 
AGENT J said:
1.) false what was considered illegal discrimination before, now in some case may no longer be based on feelings
2.) already had this before . . but again what used to be illegal discrimination maybe be found to be legal based on my feelings
3.) well they arent all alike and that would be your opinion
4.) which could have been done before also but without the reference to this

so again im still left wondering (based on the context of my conversation with another poster)
My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

and

before the bill i couldnt illegally discriminate and violate the rights of people using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc
before the bill people couldnt illegally discriminate against me and violate my rights using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc

after the bill, now the possibility exists that it will not be found illegal based on feelings
Click to expand...

False, that's not how the law works. And like I stated before, feel free to post any case where RFRA was used as a successful defense in practicing discrimination on any grounds. I'll not hold my breathe.
 
It was that wretched Hobby Lobby decision was Indiana's guiding force in feeling it was A-Otay to discriminate against people.

Ginsburg was right when she said it would create havoc -- giving the green light for states to write RFRA's like this.

"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." she said

Also, too: "Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate." -Ginsburg

Bingo, she hit it on the head.

The HL decision specifically dealt with "closely held corporations."

This Indiana law? Nope. Even major Corps, not in any way "closely held" are included.

Maybe some are beginning to understand why so many people / companies / even cities and now even an entire state (Conn., for example) ( banning travel to Indiana for its state / city employees) have a problem with this law.
 
eohrnberger said:
No. Not a dodge. A refusal to pursue that line of discussion. it wasn't what I wanted to talk about. That's not a dodge.
Click to expand...

by definition it is :shrug:
 
roguenuke said:
I didn't that religions didn't teach that, some religions or at least leaders of some religions do teach that. But the person chooses to accept that teaching. Many people reject parts of their religion's teachings, while still maintaining the major tenets or most of them of that religion.
Click to expand...

Like Catholics and other Christians in name only....

We're talking about major eternal damnation tenets.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
1.) False, that's not how the law works.
2.) And like I stated before, feel free to post any case where RFRA was used as a successful defense in practicing discrimination on any grounds.
3.)I'll not hold my breathe.
Click to expand...

1.) you keep saying that but i dont see anything that shows otherwise
2.) all of them are not alike so thats meaningless :shrug:
3.) good move since i wont be doing something thats not needed and doesnt change the facts
 
WCH said:
Like Catholics in name only....
Click to expand...

Very few people accept all the tenets/beliefs of their religion. And many religions change over time. So it would be a very lonely religion if it were only those who followed it or believed it completely.
 
AGENT J said:
by definition it is :shrug:
Click to expand...

No. It's not.

Hey listen, I'm not in a witness chair before you, nor am I compelled to discuss things with you that you may want to, which I don't want to.

It's a participatory discussion by both party's free will. Treating it as anything less than this both presumptuous and arrogant of you.
 
roguenuke said:
Very few people accept all the tenets/beliefs of their religion. And many religions change over time. So it would be a very lonely religion if it were only those who followed it or believed it completely.
Click to expand...

The word of God can be ignored but, it never changes.
 
eohrnberger said:
1.)No. It's not.
2.)Hey listen, I'm not in a witness chair before you, nor am I compelled to discuss things with you that you may want to, which I don't want to.
3.) It's a participatory discussion by both party's free will.
4.) Treating it as anything less than this both presumptuous and arrogant of you.
Click to expand...

1.) yes it is, definition > the opinion qouted above
2.) strawman that was never said
3.) zero impact to the fact it was a dodge
4.) another failed strawman since i didnt treat it like anything only pointed out the fact it was a dodge
the dodge is noted, if that fact is a bothersome there is a simply solution answer or dont answer and leave it as a dodge
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
1.) what citzens are in danger of that when the constitution and nondiscrimination laws already do that
2.) no not what ever a person wants but does it in fact offer the possible ablity to illegal discriminating based on feelings and not have it be illegal any more. Yes.

so again i ask, My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

before the bill i couldnt illegally discriminate and violate the rights of people using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc
before the bill people couldnt illegally discriminate against me and violate my rights using gender, race, sexual orientation religion etc etc

after the bill, now the possibility exists
Click to expand...

Except in Indiana you could always legally discriminate where it comes to sexual orientation. It's not a protected class there. In fact, in the majority of states it's not.
 
disneydude said:
Do you wanna show where Jesus spoke about homosexuality being a sin? Was it in the same place he spoke about the abomination of eating shellfish?
Click to expand...

Do you wanna show where he spoke about prostitution? And yet...

go forth...and sin no more.

Now..we CAN absolutely show where his apostles talked about homosexuality...right?

Sin no more. Thats the part you always forget.
 
Paperview said:
It was that wretched Hobby Lobby decision was Indiana's guiding force in feeling it was A-Otay to discriminate against people.

Ginsburg was right when she said it would create havoc -- giving the green light for states to write RFRA's like this.

"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." she said

Also, too: "Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate." -Ginsburg

Bingo, she hit it on the head.

The HL decision specifically dealt with "closely held corporations."

This Indiana law? Nope. Even major Corps, not in any way "closely held" are included.

Maybe some are beginning to understand why so many people / companies / even cities and now even an entire state (Conn., for example) ( banning travel to Indiana for its state / city employees) have a problem with this law.
Click to expand...
No not really. I mean...we DO understand that people are really pissed off that someone dares to oppose them in their 'demands'...but other than that...nope...I dont really see why people are losing their **** over this.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes it is, definition > your opinion
2.) strawman that was never said
3.) zero impact to the fact it was a dodge
4.) another failed strawman since i didnt treat it like anything only pointed out the fact it was a dodge
the dodge is noted, if that fact bothers you you are free to answer or you are free to not answer and leave it as a dodge
Click to expand...

There you go again.
Arrogant, irritating, killing off what might be a good discussion and just so full of yourself, beyond all reason to be so.
No surprise from someone who's tag line is "I'm kind of a big deal"

Well, guess what. You're not.

Conversation terminated. Expect no further responses.
 
roguenuke said:
Very few people accept all the tenets/beliefs of their religion. And many religions change over time. So it would be a very lonely religion if it were only those who followed it or believed it completely.
Click to expand...

As they say...Hell ain't half full.
 
Removable Mind said:
I don't see that claim coming from anybody who knows about the old testament - besides you and Blemonds.

In all of my short life, Blemonds is the first person I've ever seen or heard make that claim. So now you've supported it. Not sure that the scriptures you posted actually says that all the words in the bible or from Jesus. It just says that Jesus claimed he was with god or knew god prior to Abraham. What you're implying from your scriptures is related to a belief associated with Trinity. So be it. Personally, I don't really care what scriptures say that you choose to post. I'm not a subscriber.

However, I'm pretty sure that one saying "Jesus" was the inspirer of everything written in the bible...is not going to be agreeable with everybody.

So henceforth, every time someone says, "the bible was an inspiration of god - who actually penned the bible using man - I'll send'em your way for clarification. How's that?
Click to expand...

No. I already said I agreed with your objection, and your stated idea of biblical interpretation. Many equate the person of Christ with "The Word", which is "in the beginning" and "was with God" and "Was God", taking the leap that the bible also = "The Word"... I disagree with that as I believe there is a distinction. How ever you are really uninformed of the role of Jesus in the old testament. Look up old testament Christophany.
 
AGENT J said:
Morning MMC

well i can post links saying why its not needed and or why there should be an exclamation . . I asked you based on the logic you provided

secondly anything that starts of as saying "lefts hysteria, rights hysteria etc i instantly cant take as objective, honest and non biased, why would I.
Lastley theres nothign in there that actually tells me why these things are needed or as a christian since my rights are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?

the legal standard already exists, the way the law is now is pretty clear for the most part
and his claim that its anything but a license to discriminate has already been proven false by one simple example.

before under illegal discrimination laws it was illegal for all to discriminate based on a defined criteria . . . .now you COULD possible illegal discriminate based on feelings and its not illegal anymore :shrug:

that in fact does seem like its a license to discriminate and if the argument is this doesnt change anything im again back to my original question, why is it actually needed.

Theres nothing in the explanation above that says what it does for me as a chrsitian that isnt already done. The "guidance" isnt needed as its already clear cut, by desing this will make it more complected. Before the bill it was clear what illegal discrimination was . . . . now . . . theres great potential for us not to know.
Click to expand...



Yeah you did.....and that link explains what I was saying about the law and that it didn't discriminate. That it was designed to give religious businesses the consideration they can validate.

Naturally coming from a Right leaning Source they will lay it on like that. But if you wanted you could have checked out the link to the USA article where you would not have that type of rhetoric. Then you are stuck with nothing but someone from the left and who is in the State if Indiana and is a Law Professor.


So again I not falling for well this might or could be.

Moreover.....due to all this faux outrage. Pence and Indiana will rewrite it for clarification.
 
roguenuke said:
Very few people accept all the tenets/beliefs of their religion. And many religions change over time. So it would be a very lonely religion if it were only those who followed it or believed it completely.
Click to expand...

That only sounds true because we're used to being surrounded by weak-ass humanists. For example, Mormons. Hell, we as a nation even tried to get rid of them all, to purge them at one point, and they're still here. Believing the same things they did when Joseph Smith rolled the religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom