• 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

You are already in a protected class. Most all of them.

I am greatly relieved. What special compensations are due to me? Let me hasten to add that they need not necessarily be financial in nature.
 
So you presume to know the intent of both Obama and the entire legislature of Indiana and the intent of the Governor. That's just awesome.

We know who helped write the bill -- and why.


And the ***** Pence signed it in private (no press or public allowed) -- but these folks were there - cheering him on...

6a00d8341c730253ef01b7c76e6768970b-800wi.jpg
 
He is doing that to protect his state. The liars won.

All of those CEO's with their army of lawyers were all wrong about this law and how it was written?

Or some here are wrong and being naive and/or partisan about the true intent of the law.

Ummmm? Which to believe?
 
I am greatly relieved. What special compensations are due to me? Let me hasten to add that they need not necessarily be financial in nature.

Have you been discriminated against on account of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin (or sexual preference if you are in a state that has those protected classes) ?

You're protected as being one of those classes of people - in every instance.
 
All of those CEO's with their army of lawyers were all wrong about this law and how it was written?

Or some here are wrong and being naive and/or partisan about the true intent of the law.

Ummmm? Which to believe?

The CEO's and their lawyers are in the business of controversy-avoidance. They knew there would be an assault.
 
If this bill wasn't supposed to allow discrimination, what was the point of this bill?
 
The best part is: it'll all be moot soon in Ind. as the governor says the the legislators will amend the law to state unequivocally "no one can be refused service."

So it's actually going to strengthen the laws against discriminating against g&l - the exact opposite of what the bigoted lobbyists pushing for the bill wanted.

i hope that is not the case. No one would include people who can't pay, are too drunk, or have a gun in their hand...
 
The CEO's and their lawyers are in the business of controversy-avoidance. They knew there would be an assault.

No, they actually saw a threat to their businesses and their employees.

Another person at a place I also post at did a very good job of explaining it:

"Really, lets see, lets walk you through how a corporation could bolt.

I am a design sheet metal company specializing in high end artistic sheet metal fabrication. I have a staff of 100 employees, 10 of my employees happen to be gay. I'm going to expand my business and I'm looking for States that have attributes: low taxes, good labor pool, cheap cost of living, decent living standards...

oh, wait a minute. If I move my business to Indiana, my 10 gay employees are going to face State Sanctioned discrimination. Realtors can legally refuse to sell them a house, Apartment owners can refuse to lease to them, restaurants can legally refuse to serve them food. In fact, because I harbor these "gays" my business can legally be discriminated against. Suppliers in Indiana can legally choose to not sell to me.

So why would I move my Business to Indiana? I guess I could move then cross my fingers and "hope" no one discriminates against my business or my employees because if they do I'd have no recourse under Indiana law."
 
We know who helped write the bill -- and why.


And the ***** Pence signed it in private (no press or public allowed) -- but these folks were there - cheering him on...

6a00d8341c730253ef01b7c76e6768970b-800wi.jpg

Pence and his talibornagain zealots....what a wimp.
 
That's what you think. And there's a big, big difference between intelligence and Godly wisdom, the latter of which is obviously lost on the pro-gay left.

Of that there is no doubt. Does your religion allow you to watch "The Big Bang Theory"?
 
No, they actually saw a threat to their businesses and their employees.

Another person at a place I also post at did a very good job of explaining it:

"Really, lets see, lets walk you through how a corporation could bolt.

I am a design sheet metal company specializing in high end artistic sheet metal fabrication. I have a staff of 100 employees, 10 of my employees happen to be gay. I'm going to expand my business and I'm looking for States that have attributes: low taxes, good labor pool, cheap cost of living, decent living standards...

oh, wait a minute. If I move my business to Indiana, my 10 gay employees are going to face State Sanctioned discrimination. Realtors can legally refuse to sell them a house, Apartment owners can refuse to lease to them, restaurants can legally refuse to serve them food. In fact, because I harbor these "gays" my business can legally be discriminated against. Suppliers in Indiana can legally choose to not sell to me.

So why would I move my Business to Indiana? I guess I could move then cross my fingers and "hope" no one discriminates against my business or my employees because if they do I'd have no recourse under Indiana law."

Sorry, but the discrimination you cite would not have passed muster before or after RFRA.
 
The CEO's and their lawyers are in the business of controversy-avoidance. They knew there would be an assault.

Nope. They knew this what this is really about. The bigots and social conservatives have lost the gay marriage battle. So they're trying something else.

While Pence on Tuesday called on Indiana lawmakers to pass legislation clarifying that it does not allow business owners to discriminate in providing services, it's unclear how the law would be changed.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said any changes must not prevent florists, bakers or other businesses from being able to decline providing services to gay couples.

At LEAST this guy is being truthful.

Despite uproar in Indiana, Arkansas presses on
 
No, they actually saw a threat to their businesses and their employees.

Another person at a place I also post at did a very good job of explaining it:

"Really, lets see, lets walk you through how a corporation could bolt.

I am a design sheet metal company specializing in high end artistic sheet metal fabrication. I have a staff of 100 employees, 10 of my employees happen to be gay. I'm going to expand my business and I'm looking for States that have attributes: low taxes, good labor pool, cheap cost of living, decent living standards...

oh, wait a minute. If I move my business to Indiana, my 10 gay employees are going to face State Sanctioned discrimination. Realtors can legally refuse to sell them a house, Apartment owners can refuse to lease to them, restaurants can legally refuse to serve them food. In fact, because I harbor these "gays" my business can legally be discriminated against. Suppliers in Indiana can legally choose to not sell to me.

So why would I move my Business to Indiana? I guess I could move then cross my fingers and "hope" no one discriminates against my business or my employees because if they do I'd have no recourse under Indiana law."

I swear you guys are making my argument for me. You're basically saying there is no point in anti-discrimination laws since the private sector rejects discrimination by a very wide margin. Lovely.

I do however want liberals to say libertarians were right the entire time and our laws are pointless.

Thank you.
 
Sorry, but the discrimination you cite would not have passed muster before or after RFRA.

I'm going to go along with the people large corps and states and cities and scholars who said it would -- I think especially the businesses who would have been affected.

Not some guy winging it on the internet.
 
I swear you guys are making my argument for me. You're basically saying there is no point in anti-discrimination laws since the private rejects discrimination by a very wide margin. Lovely.
Your post makes no sense in relation to what I posted.

What *was* the point of making this law?

It's point *was* to allow discrimination -- and the liars are the ones not admitting it.
 
Sexual orientation is more protected than religious belief and practice in the case of gay marriage, it would appear. It goes so far that the state is allowed to discriminate against a citizen and put her out of business, if she as an individual does not want to participate in religiously forbidden rites.That is pretty heavy.

Which state would that be? Which case exactly?
 
I'm going to go along with the people large corps and states and cities and scholars who said it would -- I think especially the businesses who would have been affected.

Not some guy winging it on the internet.

:lamo So businesses, those people you think are bastards that would discriminate against everyone, are against discrimination. Oh, how wonderful today is with all these liberals admitting they have no basis for an argument.
 
I'm going to go along with the people large corps and states and cities and scholars who said it would -- I think especially the businesses who would have been affected.

Not some guy winging it on the internet.

Controversy avoidance.
 
Your post makes no sense in relation to what I posted.

What *was* the point of making this law?

It's point *was* to allow discrimination -- and the liars are the ones not admitting it.

I'm talking about anti-discrimination laws. If business by a wide margin won't discriminate against anyone the case for anti-discrimination laws is more or less non-existent. Libertarians have been saying for the last forty years that the market place can handle discrimination, and here you guys are saying the market place is handling the situation. Go ****ing figure libertarians were right about the free market.
 
Back
Top Bottom