• 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

Fearandloathing said:
"Protected classes?"

WTF, the left is into class warfare now?

"Classes?" that's just insane
Click to expand...


Yes, maybe you've heard of them? The were listed in the CRA of 64.

Race, color, creed, sex, or national origin

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


Even 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.
 
vesper said:


Should this Christian man be angry?
Click to expand...


For not having someone sell them something they don't sell? No one, Christian, Muslim, atheist, Jew, other would be able to require those bakers to make them a cake/cookie that said something hateful or that they didn't agree on it. Most offered to sell him a cake that he could decorate on his own. And if he hadn't been so rude and obnoxious to them, insisting that they weren't standing for equality or they weren't being fair to him, etc., then all of them likely would have offered to sell him a cake that he could have added the exact words he wanted to them. He wasn't turned away for being Christian, or even really being against gays, but denied service on a type of cake those bakers didn't actually make, one with what they considered "hateful" message on it. So long as they wouldn't sell such a cake to anyone, there was no discrimination.
 
Henrin said:
: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.
Click to expand...

Why would you think businesses who don't want to do business in Indiana are bastards? They understand protecting their employees from discrimination. Most do, anyway.

This law was a threat to that.

BTW: I'm a business owner myself, and have been for decades.
 
Paperview said:
Why would you think businesses who don't want to do business in Indiana are bastards? They understand protecting their employees from discrimination. Most do, anyway.

This law was a threat to that.

BTW: I'm a business owner myself, and have been for decades.
Click to expand...

It's pretty hypocritical that a lot of these businesses boycotting Indiana over what is stupid misunderstanding of RFRA are perfectly content to business with, say, communist China.
 
JoeTrumps said:
what would happen if a Muslim or Jewish bakery refused to make a cake for a gay wedding? one thing I know for certain: the liberal "outrage"(remember when it took EFFORT to be outraged? those were the days) would not be nearly as hyperbolic. The gays have a problem with the EVIL CHRISTIANS only, for reasons only a certified psychiatrist could explain.
Click to expand...

Any actual evidence for this, or just taking a wild guess based on your personal partisan beliefs? There is no evidence that those who support same sex marriage would be more accepting of religion being used as an excuse to deny service to gays. I wouldn't. I don't think anyone should be able to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's pretty hypocritical that a lot of these businesses boycotting Indiana over what is stupid misunderstanding of RFRA are perfectly content to business with, say, communist China.
Click to expand...

It's pretty hypocritical for you and the other cons to complain about doing business with communists - when just about everything you're touching right now comes from there.

The businesses here have a much great affect on what happens in their own country and employees than purchasing good from the world's largest exporter of goods.
 
Paperview said:
Why would you think businesses who don't want to do business in Indiana are bastards? They understand protecting their employees from discrimination. Most do, anyway.

This law was a threat to that.

BTW: I'm a business owner myself, and have been for decades.
Click to expand...

it might make sense to boycott a business that is found to discriminate... but a state wide boycott that necessarily includes businesses that do not discriminate?... that's downright idiotic and childish.
 
WCH said:
Barely mentioned?

https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

Fortunately if you chose to quit supporting it [or practicing it if that were the case] you would be forgiven and wouldn't have to worry about that facet at all.
Click to expand...

I know I would prefer hell to a heaven that expects people to bow to insane rules. The company would be much better in hell anyway, if that is really how it works (which I highly doubt). Sounds like you're pretty sure you won't be there, so at least there's that.
 
Thrilla said:
it might make sense to boycott a business that is found to discriminate... but a state wide boycott that necessarily includes businesses that do not discriminate?... that's downright idiotic and childish.
Click to expand...

Well, you're entitled to your own silly opinions.
 
JANFU said:
Sorry large number of posts to read.

Does not harm them?
Creates an underclass of citizens does it not?
Could you please define no harm?
Click to expand...

Greetings, JANFU. :2wave:

1. How does it harm them?

2. On the contrary, it sounds like they expect special treatment, which is why they would like to be considered a "protected class."

3. As usual, some are going too far with this. Most people don't give a rat's behind about anyone else's love life until they witness a parade where everything and anything sexual is on display, including nudity. There are laws against things like that. Porn in public is usually not the best way to show people you are just an average citizen, IMO. They harm their own cause in the things they sometimes do, and it causes problems in society when they do.

Personally, I have no problem with people marrying anyone they wish, as long as age is considered.
 
Paperview said:
Why would you think businesses who don't want to do business in Indiana are bastards? They understand protecting their employees from discrimination. Most do, anyway.

This law was a threat to that.

BTW: I'm a business owner myself, and have been for decades.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about what liberals believe. Many of them hold to the idea that without anti-discrimination laws discrimination would be rampant and people would be starving in the streets. Of course there was never a basis for their argument, but all the same libertarians have been telling them for forty years that people and society can generally solve their own problems don't need the governments force to push things along. I'm sorry, but after being called all sorts of terrible names over something that is obviously true I'm more than a little pissed off about it.

A part of me enjoys the fact that I am being proven right, but another part of me is annoyed that even in the face of defeat of their argument for anti-discrimination laws liberals STILL refuse to admit they're wrong and have nothing to support their case for government force.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I'm talking about what liberals believe. Many of them hold to the idea that without anti-discrimination laws discrimination would be rampant and people would be starving in the streets. Of course there was never a basis for their argument, but all the same libertarians have been telling them for forty years that people and society can generally solve their own problems don't need the governments force to push things along. I'm sorry, but after being called all sorts of terrible names over something that is obviously true I'm more than a little pissed off about it.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, before anti-discrimination laws, discrimination WAS rampant. Many libertarians seem to harken back to a world that never existed.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Oh nothing, just curious. Did you know Sheldon was gay in real life?
Click to expand...

Does Sheldon know that if gays don't repent of their gay sex sins by the time they die, they won't be going to heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Revelation 21:8, etc.)?
 
US Conservative said:
That is some delicious irony! Shouldn't tolerance be a two way street?
Click to expand...

Show us exactly where a baker was sued and punished (fined, lost the case, etc.) for refusing to bake a cake they wouldn't make for anyone? Those bakers who refused made wedding cakes. They weren't being asked to write anything on the cake, as far as we know, nor were they even asked to place a "him/him" or "her/her" topper on the cake. They were asked to bake and decorate a cake they actually do make, advertise that they make.
 
Kobie said:
Except, of course, before anti-discrimination laws, discrimination WAS rampant. Many libertarians seem to harken back to a world that never existed.
Click to expand...

Social progress without government seems to be this thing that liberals are completely incapable of understanding. Trying to explain to a liberal that society and people can solve their own problems without a nanny is like trying to teach physics to a person in a coma.
 
Paperview said:
Well, you're entitled to your own silly opinions.
Click to expand...

As you are yours. But in this case the boycotts are made by one butthurt individual, not the people of the state involved in the boycotting. And Thrilla's point is valid. The "punishment" is applied to a majority of businesses that would never discriminate against any potential customers.

I'm all for individuals refusing to frequent individual businesses for whatever cause that has their panties in a wad. But states boycotting states, that's just stupid and partisan politics. Lord spare us from idiots with a cause.
 
Henrin said:
Social progress without government seems to be this thing that liberals are completely incapable of understanding.
Click to expand...

That's because they don't consider it progress if they can't control and brand it.
 
Henrin said:
I'm talking about what liberals believe. Many of them hold to the idea that without anti-discrimination laws discrimination would be rampant and people would be starving in the streets. Of course there was never a basis for their argument, but all the same libertarians have been telling them for forty years that people and society can generally solve their own problems don't need the governments force to push things along. I'm sorry, but after being called all sorts of terrible names over something that is obviously true I'm more than a little pissed off about it.

A part of me enjoys the fact that I am being proven right, but another part of me is annoyed that even in the face of defeat of their argument for anti-discrimination laws liberals STILL refuse to admit they're wrong and have nothing to support their case for government force.
Click to expand...

Why do you think this law was passed?
 
Paperview said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, and? I fail to see exactly how three legislators convinced the entire legislature to pass their evil intent. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
 
clownboy said:
As you are yours. But in this case the boycotts are made by one butthurt individual, not the people of the state involved in the boycotting. And Thrilla's point is valid. The "punishment" is applied to a majority of businesses that would never discriminate against any potential customers.

I'm all for individuals refusing to frequent individual businesses for whatever cause that has their panties in a wad. But states boycotting states, that's just stupid and partisan politics. Lord spare us from idiots with a cause.
Click to expand...

one butthurt individual ???

:lamo
 
Paperview said:
Why do you think this law was passed?
Click to expand...

Because a small group of people that are remarkably irrelevant in the grand scheme of things don't want to serve gays.
 
Henrin said:
Social progress without government seems to be this thing that liberals are completely incapable of understanding. Trying to explain to a liberal that society and people can solve their own problems without a nanny is like trying to teach physics to a person in a coma.
Click to expand...

Try to explain to a minority that society will start treating them like human beings when society is damn good and ready. Can't get that pesky gubmint involved, after all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom