• 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

The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. Perhaps the answer is a constitutional amendment to confer that status on LGBT people.

We do need a sarcasm font.
The point made was to enable discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.
Human rights are not a big thing in the US or just certain Conservative States?
 
Pence hit the nail on the head today at his press conference. Gross mischaracterization of the law and sloppy journalism enabled the liars to win this time.

OK, but the "gross mischaracterization" was at least ALSO by supporters of the bill, who Pence invited to the bill signing. You keep ignoring that. Not sure why - bottom line is they f'd up and are paying the price for appealing to bigots to support the bill because it would enable discrimination.

And sorry but Pence is an idiot. If he wanted to tamp down the "lies" about the bill not enabling discrimination, all he had to do was answer George's question just one time out of the six times he was asked if it would allow for discrimination. He chose not to. Stupid move, Governor!

Gov. This bill is NOT about discrimination.
George: So, Gov. will businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Gov. You know, George, it's, like, you know, not about that, see, it's about freedom and liberty.

Later. Gov: Why is everyone worried about the discrimination that I refused, SIX TIMES, to say is not facilitated about this bill. Gosh, I can't understand why there is any concern.... Lieberal media!!!
 
Horse****. Remove federal judge decisions and the facts are clear and obvious. Nationwide...the gay community **** themselves because the owner of Chik-Fil-A dared to support family values. Their ridiculous response was to schedule idiotic and impotent displays and protests. The result? hell...even gay people thought what they were doing was stupid and told them to knock it the **** off.

You go right ahead and keep twisting and spinning trying to make your version of Christ fit the facts. It wont work.

Sin no more. If you are going to try to use Christ as an argument, you will get the TOTAL comment. He did challenge those that would condemn the prostitute. to her his reply...Go forth...Sin no more.

Really? Is this why the nationwide acceptance of marriage equality has grown at an exponential rate over the last 5 years? People by large majorities now support marriage equality all across America. It isn't just (as you want to try to argue...those pesky activist judges).

The reality is that we are living in the 21st century (no longer the 20th or 19th)...People are tired of bigotry and discrimination. Bigots will continue to pay the price for their bigotry and America will not allow people to try to use religion as a shield to practice their bigotry and discrimination.

People can continue to try to pervert the teachings of Christ and take his name in vain to try to push their right-wing social agenda.

The plain and simple truth is that if people who use the name of Christ to justify their bigotry actually understood his teachings and followed them....we wouldn't even be here having this conversation.

"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these...my brethren....ye have done it unto me". "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you". Very simple precepts to follow.
 
I was counting you among the well-intentioned who have been taken in.

Taken in by what? I've read the legal analyses and it appears, based on the law as it stands today, that there isn't a big issue with the Indiana RFRA. What's just fact, however, is what motivated it and what supporters told the public - that it WAS at least a partial license to discriminate. I've posted the links, the picture of the guys making these claims standing RIGHT THERE with the Gov at the private bill signing are on this thread. The backlash is the bed those people made and I'm very happy to see them paying a price for getting in bed with anti-SSM/gay bigots.
 
We do need a sarcasm font.
The point made was to enable discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.
Human rights are not a big thing in the US or just certain Conservative States?

I was not being sarcastic. Were you? Freedom of religion is likewise constitutionally protected, and also falls in the category of human rights. I'm not religious myself, but I don't think it's necessary to oppress believers to liberate anyone else.
 
Pence hit the nail on the head today at his press conference. Gross mischaracterization of the law and sloppy journalism enabled the liars to win this time.

LOL....more like Pence thought he could pass this POS bigoted law and no one would care. He was caught completely off guard because he didn't comprehend that we are living in the 21st century and people don't support bigotry and discrimination any more. He got the wrath of the American people. There was no mischaracterization here....if THAT is what it was, then there would be no need to change the law. The fact that he is asking for the law to be changed shows that he knows his hand was caught in the cookie jar and he's realizing that he was busted.
 
OK, but the "gross mischaracterization" was at least ALSO by supporters of the bill, who Pence invited to the bill signing. You keep ignoring that. Not sure why - bottom line is they f'd up and are paying the price for appealing to bigots to support the bill because it would enable discrimination.

And sorry but Pence is an idiot. If he wanted to tamp down the "lies" about the bill not enabling discrimination, all he had to do was answer George's question just one time out of the six times he was asked if it would allow for discrimination. He chose not to. Stupid move, Governor!

Gov. This bill is NOT about discrimination.
George: So, Gov. will businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Gov. You know, George, it's, like, you know, not about that, see, it's about freedom and liberty.

Later. Gov: Why is everyone worried about the discrimination that I refused, SIX TIMES, to say is not facilitated about this bill. Gosh, I can't understand why there is any concern.... Lieberal media!!!

Pence said today that he did a poor job on Sunday. I agree. nonetheless, I think he's right on the larger point.
 
I was not being sarcastic. Were you? Freedom of religion is likewise constitutionally protected, and also falls in the category of human rights. I'm not religious myself, but I don't think it's necessary to oppress believers to liberate anyone else.

They are not being oppressed. Going into business is a personal choice that comes with a slew of rules, regs, laws and such.
 
Taken in by what? I've read the legal analyses and it appears, based on the law as it stands today, that there isn't a big issue with the Indiana RFRA. What's just fact, however, is what motivated it and what supporters told the public - that it WAS at least a partial license to discriminate. I've posted the links, the picture of the guys making these claims standing RIGHT THERE with the Gov at the private bill signing are on this thread. The backlash is the bed those people made and I'm very happy to see them paying a price for getting in bed with anti-SSM/gay bigots.

So the attack on the law is justified by what you believe are the thoughts of those who supported it? Sorry, but that's not a standard I can support.
 
Really? Is this why the nationwide acceptance of marriage equality has grown at an exponential rate over the last 5 years? People by large majorities now support marriage equality all across America. It isn't just (as you want to try to argue...those pesky activist judges).

The reality is that we are living in the 21st century (no longer the 20th or 19th)...People are tired of bigotry and discrimination. Bigots will continue to pay the price for their bigotry and America will not allow people to try to use religion as a shield to practice their bigotry and discrimination.

People can continue to try to pervert the teachings of Christ and take his name in vain to try to push their right-wing social agenda.

The plain and simple truth is that if people who use the name of Christ to justify their bigotry actually understood his teachings and followed them....we wouldn't even be here having this conversation.

"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these...my brethren....ye have done it unto me". "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you". Very simple precepts to follow.
You keep thinking that. And yet...the only true 'poll' is voting and the votes have CONSISTENTLY been in opposition to gay marriage.

Yes...charity towards others. Amen. Great concept...great standard.

Sin no more. Go forth...and sin no more.

He NEVER excused the sin. You shouldnt use Him in your arguments if you know the truth is going to make you wrong.
 
LOL....more like Pence thought he could pass this POS bigoted law and no one would care. He was caught completely off guard because he didn't comprehend that we are living in the 21st century and people don't support bigotry and discrimination any more. He got the wrath of the American people. There was no mischaracterization here....if THAT is what it was, then there would be no need to change the law. The fact that he is asking for the law to be changed shows that he knows his hand was caught in the cookie jar and he's realizing that he was busted.

They are going to amend the law because the liars won this time.
 
They are not being oppressed. Going into business is a personal choice that comes with a slew of rules, regs, laws and such.

So basically by people agreeing to open a business the government is not held to any constitutional amendment? Is that your argument?
 
You keep thinking that. And yet...the only true 'poll' is voting and the votes have CONSISTENTLY been in opposition to gay marriage.

Yes...charity towards others. Amen. Great concept...great standard.

Sin no more. Go forth...and sin no more.

He NEVER excused the sin. You shouldnt use Him in your arguments if you know the truth is going to make you wrong.
Decades ago. We are in the 21st century now. Check your calendar...and you probably want to pick up a bible too if you want to have an educated conversation about the teachings of Christ..
 
They are going to amend the law because the liars won this time.

If the law did only what they tried to claim...there would be no need to amend. The liars are the ones that got caught off guard and didn't expect the backlash from the American people.
Pence is either an idiot or a liar. Which one?
 
Decades ago. We are in the 21st century now. Check your calendar...and you probably want to pick up a bible too if you want to have an educated conversation about the teachings of Christ..
Ah....beautiful. To you, sinful behavior has changed with the times (or rather...because you dont like it).

Its you that seems to struggle with the teachings of Christ. You want to use your highlighter and highlight the parts you like, and your sharpie and eliminate the parts you dont.

Keep in mind...YOU bring it up as an argument. Since you do, you have to LIVE with it.

Go forth...and sin no more. That doesnt change just because you want it to.
 
So basically by people agreeing to open a business the government is not held to any constitutional amendment? Is that your argument?

Regardless, are you OK with LGBT being discriminated against?
Are those that could use the law based upon religious beliefs, bringing themselves into conflict with the separation of Church & State?
 
Regardless, are you OK with LGBT being discriminated against?

No.

Are those that could use the law based upon religious beliefs, bringing themselves into conflict with the separation of Church & State?

That concept has no constitutional validity. They are not establishing a state religion or even trying to create one, so no, they are not in violation of the constitution.
 
Ah....beautiful. To you, sinful behavior has changed with the times (or rather...because you dont like it).

Its you that seems to struggle with the teachings of Christ. You want to use your highlighter and highlight the parts you like, and your sharpie and eliminate the parts you dont.

Keep in mind...YOU bring it up as an argument. Since you do, you have to LIVE with it.

Go forth...and sin no more. That doesnt change just because you want it to.

I have no problem accepting ALL of the teachings of Christ. I have studied the man and know him well. Look back at your posts. It is YOU who have attempted to pidgeonhole one aspect of Christ (dealing with prostitutes) while denying all of his other teachings. Perhaps it is because you don't know much about the teachings of the man. Perhaps you are simply spouting off something that you read in someone elses posts and are trying to pass yourself off with someone who has knowledge. If so, you have failed rather sadly. I will happily discuss the entirety of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ any time you like. It doesn't take much of an understanding of the man and his teachings to know how he would view those who seek to use his name in vain to justify discrimination. You can continue to believe whatever you like....but it will never change what the man taught and what he stands for. I have never said that "Sinful behavior has changed with times" . If you can comprehend the context of the statement you are referencing, I was responding to your claim that voters have rejected gay marriage. True...they have....decades ago. Look at the course of public opinion over the last five years. Support for gay marriage has not only grown over the last five years it has grown exponentially...to the point that large majorities now favor marriage equality, which is why those desperately clinging to the hope that the SCOTUS will somehow uphold their bigoted views are soon to have those hopes dashed when marriage equality becomes the law of the land this June. This Indiana law is a new attempt by the bigots to try to find ways to retain their "right" to discriminate. They will fail as well.
 
Should Indiana have a law protecting LGBT from discrimination?
The only laws to protect anyone from discrimination should be those that restrict what government entities can do
 
He was caught off guard by the success of an attack based on vicious dishonesty.

If the attacks were "dishonest" then why does the law need to be changed? It seems like the attacks were VERY honest and that it was Pence and the rest of the bigots who were being dishonest....got caught....and are now realizing that they got caught.

Seriously...if they were being honest about the intent of the law and what the law in fact does....why would they need to change it?
 
No.



That concept has no constitutional validity. They are not establishing a state religion or even trying to create one, so no, they are not in violation of the constitution.
Laws such as these come about due to SSM which will be decided shortly by SCOTUS.
They are expanding the garden as noted below.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.
Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"—Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]
 
Back
Top Bottom