• 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

I got another lefty dream case for you-physician who refuses to write a script for abortifacients to straight people but will to gay couples.

How would you guys handle that one?

Still illegal discrimination. Doesn't matter my position on abortion either. The physician cannot refuse to do something for one person that they are willing to do for another.
 
Perhaps the best case would be a gay atheist who is anti-gay marriage, trolling those bakeries. He could easily record himself saying hes a gay atheist and he wants an anti-gay marriage cake for a wedding. See how easy this is?

And no-douche-bag isn't a protected classification-and I have a problem with protected classes in general (outside of medical conditions and children).

My problem here is not with gay marriage-I actually support that-my problem is with a stunning double standard, use of the govt to coerce non-protected class private businesses and citizens, and the invasive nature of the left in what should be a personal transaction between private citizens.

And if the person doing this was a "gay atheist", he/she would still be wrong and still be a douchebag. The cases would still not be similar so long as they were refusing based on the request and not the person making the request.
 
Nope. Generally, discrimination is justified if you can show a rational basis for it. "I don't sell beer or cigarettes to minors" is discrimination, but the reasoning is based on sound information that such things are worse for minors than for adults, can be much more harmful to them. "I refuse to allow anyone without a shirt to enter my store" is discrimination against those who don't want to or simply aren't wearing a shirt. It is justified though for several reasons. Someone might try to steal a shirt if the store sells them, pretending he was wearing one all the time. Or they might get sick due to the temperature inside the building and try to sue the owner for making them sick because they refused to wear a shirt. The owner could view it as a sanitation issue, since it is possible that a woman especially might be lactating (technically it is possible for a man to lactate as well, under certain circumstances). Being shirtless could allow for the lactation to drip on the floor and cause a slip hazard or simply end up somewhere in the store where someone else "touch" it by accident, spreading germs (milk, even breast milk, does not do well outside the body). "I do not sell pork products" is discrimination. Justified in that pretty much every business can decide what products they sell, just not that they won't sell them to certain types of people protected by laws.

Sorry, but we're talking about discrimination based on ideology. So discrimination against Indiana based on ideology is no different than discrimination by Christian bakers against homosexual marriage. Both are discrimination based on ideology. Both should be legal. But our liberal friends think their form of discrimination is good while that of others is wrong
 
Nothing to think about. When one is intolerant of intolerance, the objection is to someone who holds a different perspective. That's not only intolerance, it's bigotry.

So, for example, if someone is intolerant of a KKK member's action - it's that person who is the bigot - and not the KKK member.

OOoooooookay.

:roll:
 
Sorry, but they were long time customers which means their sexual preferences were not an issue. It was the event that was an issue

No, it was the fact that the couple was getting married, which is not about the event itself, but the couple involved in the event. Just as if the bakers had refused an interracial couple, claiming "I don't bake interracial marriage cakes".
 
Not at all. It is a crime to kill someone, and in fact, a person who knows that another is going to use a product to "kill" someone is absolutely justified in not only not selling them that product, but also calling the cops.

Getting married to someone of the same sex is not illegal. It isn't even illegal in those places that don't allow same sex couples to marry yet. Having or even eating a cake at a wedding for a same sex couple is not illegal either.
And both are based on discrimination based on the intended use of the product, not the person
 
That's why dozens of GOP-supporting corporations, including now NASCAR and WAL-MART, disagree with you .

Which is one of the shortcomings of the left-they believe they alone are the arbiters of tolerance, and since they are such strong defenders, nothing they do is wrong because the ends justify the means.
 
So, for example, if someone is intolerant of a KKK member's action - it's that person who is the bigot - and not the KKK member.

OOoooooookay.

:roll:
It remains intolerance
 
No, it was the fact that the couple was getting married, which is not about the event itself, but the couple involved in the event. Just as if the bakers had refused an interracial couple, claiming "I don't bake interracial marriage cakes".
That's an event. Thanks for that admission. And that the couple had purchased products there before, it obviously has nothing to do with the persons
 
No, it was the fact that the couple was getting married, which is not about the event itself, but the couple involved in the event. Just as if the bakers had refused an interracial couple, claiming "I don't bake interracial marriage cakes".

So now your premise is that despite them being longtime customers, (and gay), only now when a wedding cake was requested did the bakery suddenly decide to discriminate against the couple?

Thats makes sense. :roll:
 
That's why dozens of GOP-supporting corporations, including now NASCAR and WAL-MART, disagree with you .

Lolz Nimby Wal Mart is a business. Businesses are there to make money. I certainly dont care what their view is. For NASCAR, suffice to say thats even more so.
 
What would you do if you were Arkansas Gov. Hutchison?

He's just been (hobby) lobbied to veto an Indiana-style bill in his Arkansas by WAL-MART.

A bill he said he would readily sign.

Indiana wants me--Lord I can't go back there.
Except to get to Kasich's state .

I got another lefty dream case for you-physician who refuses to write a script for abortifacients to straight people but will to gay couples.

How would you guys handle that one?
 
Exactly, and now pence or penance want's to redefine the law, what's there to define? Notice how the GOP wagons are circling around the IN law? I hope they're inclusive of Islam while they're circling the Christian wagons. :lol:

i doubt it since pence in his letter to lobbyists specifically mentioned protecting christianity and they hate muslims just as much
 
What would you do if you were Arkansas Gov. Hutchison?

He's just been (hobby) lobbied to veto an Indiana-style bill in his Arkansas by WAL-MART.

A bill he said he would readily sign.

Indiana wants me--Lord I can't go back there.
Except to get to Kasich's state .

Depends if he can run for reelection or has republic primary aspirations, in which case he'll sign to appeal to bigot voters. Michigan's governor said he might veto it, but that's because he can't run for a 3rd term.

If the arkansas or any other gov actually cared about his state's reputation or economic viability he would veto it, but he's a populist pig like every other politician

And this is why democracy fails
 
We'll take those GOP businesses off yer hands, US Conservative.
Did you see the Marriott CEO--priceless?!
If you really want to :lamo, watch some NCAA Final Four this weekend.
Pence and the Presidential morons haven't seen nothing yet dude .

Lolz Nimby Wal Mart is a business. Businesses are there to make money. I certainly dont care what their view is. For NASCAR, suffice to say thats even more so.
 
What would you do if you were Arkansas Gov. Hutchison?

He's just been (hobby) lobbied to veto an Indiana-style bill in his Arkansas by WAL-MART.

A bill he said he would readily sign.

Indiana wants me--Lord I can't go back there.
Except to get to Kasich's state .

That would depend on the political situation in Arkansas. I have been to SW Missouri and NW Arkansas which IIRC is where Walmart is based. They likely hold significant power there, and the state is not consistently Republican or Democrat, so that would be up to him.
 
We'll take those GOP businesses off yer hands, US Conservative.
Did you see the Marriott CEO--priceless?!
If you really want to :lamo, watch some NCAA Final Four this weekend.
Pence and the Presidential morons haven't seen nothing yet dude .

IIRC Walmart supports raising the minimum wage knowing its bad for the economy and unemployment-but they do so because it hurts their competitors more.

Like I said, Walmart is a business, its there to make money first and foremost. Wasn't Hillary on the board of directors for Walmart? :lol:
 
It's hard to believe, but these Neanderthals actually believe that. No right is more sacred to them than property rights.

Yeah i used to have a modicum of respect for libertarians, but no more
 
You could just cut to the chase and say: I support bigots and people who discriminate against people the basis of their race, sex, national origin, religion, etc...

nah most of these only support discrimination against LGBT. They almost always dodge questions about repealing the civil rights act.

A few others will admit they hate LGBT only, when it comes to the "principle" of denying service - look at clownboy's response for instance
 
See the cases of the baker and photographer forced out of business. What is the eventual outcome of a Christian merchant who stands on his beliefs and refuses over and over to provide products or services for homosexual weddings?

Show that they were forced out of business. The bakers are still running businesses.

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

Home - Sweet Cakes

This one above lost their storefront shop due to loss of business. That is a market force, nothing to do with the government. They could have not faced fines at all, a court case at all, and they would have still been in the same position. You cannot force people to buy from other people.

I can't actually find any information about what happened to the photographer. She had to pay about $7000 in attorney's fees. That was pretty much it, and agree not to discriminate. The SCOTUS refused to hear her case. I can't find any information about her being "forced" out of business. It is possible that people refused to purchase her services, but once again, are you going to force people to use her rather than another photographer?
 
Back
Top Bottom