• 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

Asking about the intention of the bill (which most here know damn well what is was about -- WHO were the people who wrote it) -- What they said about -- Why they did it now -- and what was said during legislative session -- is not an invalid question --

You consider it loaded, fine. Everyone knows what the intention was - even though you (like Pence did on Sunday) get all afiggedy when asked about it.

I'm certainly not all afiggedy. And no, not everyone knows what the intention was - there are only those who presume to know - with the exception of those who signed it. They know. Ask them rather than presume. I'm rather a disinterested outside party. I noted what I consider an over the top reaction to this legislation. Perhaps changes are in order, but the reaction by some to the legislation suggests that some gross evil has been incorporated into law, and I simply don't see that at all. I think this reaction betrays problems some have with the first amendment.
 
Yet they are bigoted in who they deny their services to.

You do realize that this "religious freedom" was tried before against black folks because they had the "mark of Cain"? That's why we have public accomodation laws.
The discrimination against blacks was codified in the law. Discrimination against blacks by a private party or business should be perfectly legal just as discrimination against any person should be
 
Objectionable due to the people involved, their sexuality, their relative sexes. That is illegal discrimination based on the people involved in the event, their classification, protected, at least in those states where this issue has seen lawsuits/court cases/claims. The law is clear on this and the courts agree.
But that's not true. There is no objection to the people involved but to the ACTIVITY those people are engaged in. In this case, marriage. The idea that the state should force me to provide my services to an activity that I deem immoral or objectionable is a violation of my individual liberty. That should be obvious yet it isn't to the totalitarian left. If I am a democrat, should I be compelled by the state to bake a cake for a republican convention? If I oppose legalization of drugs, should I be forced to provide my services to a legalization rally? If I believe abortion is murder, is it right for the state to force me to provide my services to a planned parenthood party? The answer is obvious. Yet liberals value equality over liberty so there is disagreement where there should be none.
 
The discrimination against blacks was codified in the law. Discrimination against blacks by a private party or business should be perfectly legal just as discrimination against any person should be

Brought to you by the party of 1950.
 
I'm certainly not all afiggedy. And no, not everyone knows what the intention was - there are only those who presume to know - with the exception of those who signed it. They know. Ask them rather than presume. I'm rather a disinterested outside party. I noted what I consider an over the top reaction to this legislation. Perhaps changes are in order, but the reaction by some to the legislation suggests that some gross evil has been incorporated into law, and I simply don't see that at all. I think this reaction betrays problems some have with the first amendment.

We don't need to ask them because they told us already. I'm sorry you're not aware of it.
 
The intended use of a wedding cake is to eat it in celebration of a marriage, an objectionable marriage in this case in the eyes of the baker

Yes. Objectionable because they're gay and the baker doesn't like gay people. It's not about his religion. The baker will sell cakes to women with shaved heads, he will sell cakes to fat people, there's one that happily sold cakes for a pagan solstice celebration, a dog wedding, and a divorce party. These people aren't following their ****ing holy books, they've just found a convenient justification for their hate.
 
What did they say?

When Pence signed SB 101 in a private ceremony, three people who work for groups that supported the same-sex marriage ban and want to limit civil rights for gays and lesbians were in attendance. One of the lobbyists, Eric Miller of Advance America, heralded the state’s law as protecting Christian bakers, florists and photographers from penalty "for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage, among other examples." This is a direct reference to high-profile cases of Christian wedding vendors refusing to provide services for gay couples in other states.

Advance America » Blog Archive » VICTORY AT THE STATE HOUSE!

Also, before the bill passed an amendment was offered to clarify this very issue. That amendment was rejected.
 
The discrimination against blacks was codified in the law. Discrimination against blacks by a private party or business should be perfectly legal just as discrimination against any person should be

^ Well, there you have it.

Thought so,
 
Yes. Objectionable because they're gay and the baker doesn't like gay people. It's not about his religion. The baker will sell cakes to women with shaved heads, he will sell cakes to fat people, there's one that happily sold cakes for a pagan solstice celebration, a dog wedding, and a divorce party. These people aren't following their ****ing holy books, they've just found a convenient justification for their hate.

I'll bet they don't ask every customer their sexual orientation when they buy donuts either.
 
Then you know how the ACLU shops for cases, so stop pretending otherwise. They look for cases that will get through appeals making the strongest case, in order to have the biggest impact. DC vs Heller happened in DC for a reason. The Fluck case (at a Catholic university) was picked for a reason.

This is nothing new, goes back to at least the civil rights era, and the Rosa Parks case.

No need to pretend otherwise.

The ACLU generally does NOT shop for causes. The way it works is that people file complaints with the ACLU. The only argument that you can make that the ACLU "Shops for causes" is that the ACLU does not respond to every complaint that they receive. It would be impossible. We had a board that would review the complaints once a month and we would decide how to respond to them and which ones we would take up. It generally was not based on any particular political view but rather which causes we believed had merit and that we could prevail on. Perhaps on a "national level" you may be correct, I am not sure. But on a state level at the ACLU we were not concerned about appellate courts, let alone the Supreme Court. We were primarily concerned with the state courts and whether we could prevail on behalf of the client.
 
I know people like yourself hate the spin that conscientious objection lends the argument. That does not make it wrong. Just unconventional and an aggravation to gay activists.

I'm just saying you are using that word wrong. You can just as easily say that racists "conscientiously object" to being forced to support the mixing of the races, either in public accommodations or literally in reproduction or unions.
 
No, it would be more like selling a hunting knife to a black person one week but refusing to sell him one another week if he said he was going to use it to kill someone

Nope. Bad analogy again because in this case, the seller never was willing to sell a "hunting knife to the black person". Your analogy would be more like saying the seller would sell the black guy a hunting knife, but not guns, because he only sells guns to white people. THAT is a more appropriate analogy.
 
And this bill doesn't do anything like that. But it does help to protect already given freedoms in the First Amendment. Folks can still sue them if they think they are being discriminated against but it will level the field so one's rights doesn't trump another. At least that is the way I read it.

The Indiana law goes beyond that. This is the reason why the outrage. Pence is a liar. He thought he could sign this into law and expand the ability of people to use religion to discriminate. He got caught...plain and simple.
 
The Indiana law goes beyond that. This is the reason why the outrage. Pence is a liar. He thought he could sign this into law and expand the ability of people to use religion to discriminate. He got caught...plain and simple.

No it can't. You keep trying to say it can, but it can't. I would love to see you show an example of how it can be used.
 
Why don't you show me all the civil rights violations committed in Indiana instead of complaining about something that hasn't happened.

The law didn't have time to come into effect. The American people wouldn't stand for it.
 
No it can't. You keep trying to say it can, but it can't. I would love to see you show an example of how it can be used.

Why does the law need to be changed then? If your side is telling the truth....there is no need for changes or any other kind of "clarification". Sorry...but use your head.
 
But that's not true. There is no objection to the people involved but to the ACTIVITY those people are engaged in. In this case, marriage. The idea that the state should force me to provide my services to an activity that I deem immoral or objectionable is a violation of my individual liberty. That should be obvious yet it isn't to the totalitarian left. If I am a democrat, should I be compelled by the state to bake a cake for a republican convention? If I oppose legalization of drugs, should I be forced to provide my services to a legalization rally? If I believe abortion is murder, is it right for the state to force me to provide my services to a planned parenthood party? The answer is obvious. Yet liberals value equality over liberty so there is disagreement where there should be none.

Nope, the objection is to the people involved in that event. They have no objection to the actual event by itself. They sell wedding cakes. In fact, the cake wasn't even being used at an actual wedding, but rather after the fact, in celebration of the union.

It depends on whether or not you provide those services to others but refuse to certain groups based on classifications of those people protected by the law.

For example, you cannot agree to provide a cake for a "pot legalization" party/rally for everyone except Mormons, because your beliefs go against contributing to other people breaking what you believe to be their religious tenets/restrictions. You couldn't agree to sell a cake for a Republican candidate to anyone except gay Republicans, at least not in places that include sexual orientation/sexuality as protected class. You can't refuse to provide services to a Planned Parenthood party/event, unless it included a certain percentage of black people.

The bakers all provided wedding cakes. They were refusing service based on the people involved in the event, not the actual event.
 
Why does the law need to be changed then? If your side is telling the truth....there is no need for changes or any other kind of "clarification". Sorry...but use your head.

My side? You mean basic logic and application of laws?

Like stated before, anti-discrimination laws will always trump RFRA accommodations. The clarification, like I told you in the other thread, is to calm down the morons.
 
My side? You mean basic logic and application of laws?

Like stated before, anti-discrimination laws will always trump RFRA accommodations. The clarification, like I told you in the other thread, is to calm down the morons.

 


wedge.jpg
 
Acceptance is support. [and it's exactly what they 'claim' to want] But you're right, most are too emotionally involved with the subject to ever change their minds.

OK, but you accept and therefore "support" sinners of all stripes. We all do, at least in how we interact with the world. One easy example are single parents with children born out of wedlock. Not only does society accept them, we provide them tax benefits. There is no law preventing a cheating husband from dumping his wife and marrying his mistress. Newt did it twice. You may not approve of his choices, but there is no push to make what he did ILLEGAL. We all accept divorce, despite the vows many of us make. Our society celebrates raw greed and selfishness, so long as it's tied to business. You accept atheists or agnostics in that I doubt if you even bother to inquire about the spiritual health of them when you're on the operating room table. And even if you grill your retailers and service providers and only do business with the righteous, society demands nothing in that regard. And certainly the non-believers or fake believers all get the same access to the rights and obligations of marriage as the devout and "true" (versus the "in name only") Christians. No one inquires about that when the marriage license is signed.

Point is I don't think gays are asking for your spiritual blessing on their lifestyle any more than the agnostics or atheists are, nor am I. My beliefs on homosexuality are the last thing on the list of things to worry about come judgment day. If that's at the top of yours, or in the top tier, great. Your life, your beliefs, your choice. I can respect those beliefs and reject them same way I respect but reject Islam or Buddhism.

But if you start tying government benefits to how well a person lives his or her life in accordance with your interpretation of the Bible, you'll find that those efforts will be overwhelmingly rejected. But when we do the same to gay couples, they're supposed to accept that without a peep of protest. So when you say that acceptance is all they "claim" (whatever that means) to want, it's not your spiritual "acceptance" just that they be treated like adulterers, the greedy, the divorced, the liars, the non-believers, etc. who (e.g.) can all line up and get a marriage license.
 
Back
Top Bottom