• 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

We have 5000+ crewmembers on a carrier. Most departments can pull 5-6 section duty in liberty ports, some do.

And the other stuff happens too and is completely ignored to rant about women getting pregnant on ships. It is no more a problem than things men do on ships, including hazing each other or playing "quick draw", ending up with one of them shot. The military has had women in it for quite a while, much longer than either of us have been around.

As for your buddy, either he or you are misconstruing where the destruction of morale is actually coming from. Again, any person, of any sexuality, can sexually assault another person, including a man. Being gay does not make a person unable to control themselves or more likely to sexually assault those around them, in their units. IF that is what they believe then it is that wrong belief that needs to go away, because that is the main issue. A secondary issue would be ensuring that sexual assaults of any kind, no matter the sex or sexuality of the victim or perpetrator, is dealt with to the fullest extent of military law. Again, sexual assault is still a crime, and always has been in the military. Nothing about putting DADT in place, nor repealing it to allow gays to serve openly changed this.

Im not denying that men do anything-last I checked it takes two to tango. Im a man-I know men. Im saying its a real problem.
I also know that a man, in the front lines in a war, had his sense of morale destroyed as he was being shot at-because of DADT.

Im a Paramedic-Im aware that things happen outside of whats in the paper. I suspect you know this as well.
 
Actually, it had to do with trying to fool the teacher who questioned why they were all there, each meeting her one at a time (I actually just watched the episode again, since posting the last post on this subject, figured it was as good a time as any to watch the series again).

The fact remains though that they were a "nontraditional family" and there were several "relatively tame" innuendos made in that series that are only caught onto as adults. Like Jesse trying to help Joey become more "badass" and telling Joey after they climbed off his bike that he needed to let go or he, Jesse, would have some explaining to do to his own parents.

Not all non traditional families are equivalent. I appreciate the tame innuendos-its what allows us all to laugh, from kids to adults-see I love Lucy and the absolutely timeless radio from the 30's, 40's, and 50's and early TV just do it right. Its STILL funny, and STILL clever.
 
Religious freedom. Homosexuals hate it. But they'll just have to get used to it because it's a constitutional right. Indiana is within their rights to pass this law and homosexual are within their rights to throw a hissy fit, stomp their feet, call for political action, boycotts and anything short of physical aggression like eye scratching and hair pulling. Eventually, they'll wear themselves out and get over it. I'm surprised anyone considers this news.

like we "got over" gay marriage bans? We will never stop fighting oppression. We've been doing it for 50+ years and more organized and united, with far more support, than ever
 
The Indiana legislature has reportedly reached a consensus on amending the state's RFRA law and it will be reviewed by Gov. Pence today before a vote transpires. It is a compromise that will dispel some of the harsher criticisms of the law, but a compromise in which neither liberals nor conservatives will be totally happy. According to insiders, the compromise legislation specifies that the new religious freedom law cannot be used as a legal defense to discriminate against patrons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In Arkansas, Gov. Hutchinson asked for the state's RFRA law to be recalled and amended. By a 26-6 vote, the state Senate on Wednesday approved a bill that more closely resembles the federal RFRA law. The state House is scheduled to debate and vote on the amended measure today. It is felt that forming a legislative consensus in Arkansas will be more difficult than in Indiana.

Arkansas senator Bart Hester, who presented the original bill in his chamber told reporters: "The Arkansas RFRA did not mirror the federal RFRA law. That was intentional."
 
Arkansas senator Bart Hester, who presented the original bill in his chamber told reporters: "The Arkansas RFRA did not mirror the federal RFRA law. That was intentional."

So when conservatives and their pundits were saying over and over these past 2 days that these state laws in Indy and Arkansas were the same as the Fed law they were wrong? Or were they lying?

They look foolish now.
 
Im not denying that men do anything-last I checked it takes two to tango. Im a man-I know men. Im saying its a real problem.
I also know that a man, in the front lines in a war, had his sense of morale destroyed as he was being shot at-because of DADT.

Im a Paramedic-Im aware that things happen outside of whats in the paper. I suspect you know this as well.

Again. He claims it was because of DADT. In reality, it was his own discomfort and the discomfort of other guys about having to serve with gay men, which they were almost certainly already doing without knowing it. The difference was that the gay guys didn't have to lie to get in, get that opportunity to serve their country, and however shallow it may seem, get that opportunity to get the great benefits like steady pay, healthcare, 20 year full retirement, college money, and much more. Straight men and women prior to DADT could do so without having to lie about who they were attracted to, gay men and women couldn't. After DADT, the lying wasn't as overt, rather more of just hiding who they were with a little less worry if someone only suspected they were gay (and that was dependent on what job you had).

My husband was a Marine, out there in the deserts, joining after DADT was in place, with the least of his worries being "oh my god that guy is gay or might be gay". He was a sailor when it was repealed and again not really much of an issue. Even more of "not an issue" for me in the Navy reserves. We had one guy during the training question berthing arrangements and there were people from the rest of the unit basically telling him to get over it, he wouldn't be required to sleep naked with any man, gay or straight if he didn't want to.
 
Not all non traditional families are equivalent. I appreciate the tame innuendos-its what allows us all to laugh, from kids to adults-see I love Lucy and the absolutely timeless radio from the 30's, 40's, and 50's and early TV just do it right. Its STILL funny, and STILL clever.

Families are families. There is really no objective ideal, perfect, or "optimal" family, whether traditional or non-traditional families. All sorts of families work just as well at raising children, including same sex parented families, where the parents actually are in a relationship as well as families were two or more people of the same sex are raising children while not in a relationship. Mainly, there are just factors that tend to cause issues with children, and not having a person of a certain sex in the household parenting has never been shown to be one of those factors.
 
Anyone remember this a while back?

New Mexico Governor's Hairstylist Refuses Service Over Gay-Marriage Stance | TIME.com

I wonder how people feel about the hair stylist refusing service over the governor's beliefs and lifestyle choices. Why should they be some hero for "equal rights" when in fact people are acting equally on their beliefs, just on the other side of the fence?

People shouldn't be forced to do things that go against their convictions or moral character, period.

I remember that story.

I agree with your last sentence. I know that will cause someone on here to scream "You're a bigot!" but that's because somehow that statement is always taken solely in the context of homosexuality (with an occasional deviation to race). I really don't care who is homosexual any more than I care why people think homosexuality is a sin. I don't think anyone should be forced into association against their will, whatever the reason. If you fight against the use of animals in circuses, should you be forced to cater a party for the owner of a circus that uses animals? That's one example but I could come up with hundreds more just for myself.
 
like we "got over" gay marriage bans? We will never stop fighting oppression. We've been doing it for 50+ years and more organized and united, with far more support, than ever

Of course you will never stop - what grievance group ever stops? As someone once quipped "It starts as a social cause, then becomes a business, and eventually ends up as a racket".
 
So when conservatives and their pundits were saying over and over these past 2 days that these state laws in Indy and Arkansas were the same as the Fed law they were wrong? Or were they lying?

They look foolish now.

The only look foolish because the lunatic axe-grinders care more about manipulating the issue that using a dollop of intelligence. They cry (such as Tim Cook) that it protects discrimination against gays. Yet, if you read the texts, these latest RFRA laws do what all the others do, which is to require that there be a compelling state interest in the suppression of an exercise of religion. The text (as we have tirelessly shown) says nearly exactly the same thing. Whatever can be said of "protecting discrimination" in Indiana's and Arkansas law can be said of every other RFRA law in the country.

There are differences that are immaterial to the charge made. The laws are less ambiguous. They expand the range of entities who can use an RFRA defense. They allow a judicial defense prior to actual harm (if harm is likely), and covers to civil suits by anyone, not just by government.

In other words, the change is in who can argue for a religious exercise protection, the timing of its use, and in what kind of judicial proceeding it can be argued. BUT IT IS NOT DIFFERENT in its effects on discrimination, in what it does. It does not "protect (gay) discrimination" any more, or less, than any other RFRA.

So its overdue that the critics be honest with themselves and the public. There objection has nothing to do with these laws differences 'giving protection to discrimination'. That is a red herring. What spawned the insanity is that after the experience of the Hobby Lobby case, the left opposes religious exemptions to any government mandate, and therefore are apoplectic over the prospect of letting more people seek them, in a wider range of judicial proceedings. AND, to them, its galling that these states would pass a law when they don't have laws protecting against sexual orientation discrimination.

And here is the irony - it seems that Indiana is going to "fix" its law because that law didn't need fixing. So they are going to write another law protecting against sexual orientation discrimination.

The controversy was a red herring...from start to end.
 
The only look foolish because the lunatic axe-grinders care more about manipulating the issue that using a dollop of intelligence. They cry (such as Tim Cook) that it protects discrimination against gays. Yet, if you read the texts, these latest RFRA laws do what all the others do, which is to require that there be a compelling state interest in the suppression of an exercise of religion. The text (as we have tirelessly shown) says nearly exactly the same thing. Whatever can be said of "protecting discrimination" in Indiana's and Arkansas law can be said of every other RFRA law in the country.

There are differences that are immaterial to the charge made. The laws are less ambiguous. They expand the range of entities who can use an RFRA defense. They allow a judicial defense prior to actual harm (if harm is likely), and covers to civil suits by anyone, not just by government.

In other words, the change is in who can argue for a religious exercise protection, the timing of its use, and in what kind of judicial proceeding it can be argued. BUT IT IS NOT DIFFERENT in its effects on discrimination, in what it does. It does not "protect (gay) discrimination" any more, or less, than any other RFRA.

So its overdue that the critics be honest with themselves and the public. There objection has nothing to do with these laws differences 'giving protection to discrimination'. That is a red herring. What spawned the insanity is that after the experience of the Hobby Lobby case, the left opposes religious exemptions to any government mandate, and therefore are apoplectic over the prospect of letting more people seek them, in a wider range of judicial proceedings. AND, to them, its galling that these states would pass a law when they don't have laws protecting against sexual orientation discrimination.

And here is the irony - it seems that Indiana is going to "fix" its law because that law didn't need fixing. So they are going to write another law protecting against sexual orientation discrimination.

The controversy was a red herring...from start to end.

Read the highlighted carefully.

Today in Politics: Indiana Law Deepens Strain Between Republicans and Business

Walmart, Apple, Eli Lilly and General Electric may be vastly different companies, but they have at least one thing in common: opposition to the Republican-backed legislation described by proponents as religious freedom laws that have brought a backlash to Indiana and Arkansas.

With likely Republican presidential candidates having lined up to support state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the issue is likely to persist through 2016 in debates and campaign ads. But more worrying to Republicans may be the overt resistance from corporate America, a traditionally loyal constituency and source of donations.

The legislation creates the latest rift between Republicans and large businesses after frustration surrounding the “fiscal cliff” face-off, the government shutdown and immigration battles that many executives say harmed the economy. With corporate workforces becoming younger and more progressive, platforms of low taxes and less regulation are not enough to appease anymore.

Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric and a frequent Republican donor, was the latest to write to Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, arguing on Wednesday that the law could harm his workers and that the company does not tolerate discrimination.

Cook Medical, which was founded by the billionaire Gayle Cook, a big Republican donor in Indiana, also pressured Mr. Pence, saying on Facebook, “We value diversity at all levels.”

Walmart’s foray into a social issue and its call for Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas to veto his state’s bill was the most surprising. Jim Walton, a son of the company’s founder, donated thousands of dollars to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican Party of Arkansas and Senator Tom Cotton last year.


As the legislation shakes out, Democrats are unlikely to let go.

“You’re going to have Chuck Schumer and others talking turkey to members of the business community and asking them to think about what’s really in their interest and the interest of their investors,” said Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, referring to the Democratic senator from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/02/today-in-politics-indiana-law-deepens-strain-between-republicans-and-business/?ref=politics&_r=0
 
like we "got over" gay marriage bans? We will never stop fighting oppression. We've been doing it for 50+ years and more organized and united, with far more support, than ever
When will we fight the oppression against people who don't want to actively support homosexual weddings?
 
When will we fight the oppression against people who don't want to actively support homosexual weddings?

Yeah that last fight for the "rights" of those who didn't want to support mixed race marriages shows how this will end. It is shameful how bigotry is becoming less socially acceptable in our modern society. :roll:
 
Yeah that last fight for the "rights" of those who didn't want to support mixed race marriages shows how this will end. It is shameful how bigotry is becoming less socially acceptable in our modern society. :roll:
Turns out it' easy to oppress someone and justify it if you don't like their ideology or actions
 
So when conservatives and their pundits were saying over and over these past 2 days that these state laws in Indy and Arkansas were the same as the Fed law they were wrong? Or were they lying?

They look foolish now.

both wrong and lying
 
1.) not my fault you made up a strawman and moved the goal post
2.) failed insults wont change the fact your claims were destroyed and proven wrong

hint: being opposed to SSM is not the same as illegal discriminating against a gay couple, they are VERY different
at no time were we discussing simply being opposed, glad i could help you with that mistake. You're welcome
facts win again
First you come on here and oppose what I say. Then you agree completely with the post you originally opposed and act as if you have somehow won the argument. I don't know how to break this to you Charlie, but you aren't 'winning' you are trolling.
 
Turns out it' easy to oppress someone and justify it if you don't like their ideology or actions

Yep - the oppression of the bigots is somethin' fearful in this nation, what with the internment camps, forced labour and the requirement to wear badges or post signs stating who one hates.
 
1.)First you come on here and oppose what I say.
2.)Then you agree completely with the post you originally opposed and act as if you have somehow won the argument.
3.) don't know how to break this to you Charlie, but you aren't 'winning' you are trolling.

1.)"I" didnt oppose anythign, I simply pointed out what you said was factually wrong and that was proven
2.) post this lie as many times as you want but it will never be true and i have the qoutes to prove it, whatson your side? nothing
3.) facts, definitions, links and thread history prove otherwise. the claim in your post was completely destroyed and proven wrong. If you disagree simply post one fact that supports those failed claims . . . one, you wont because you cant, you will dodge this request again. with links and facts
facts win again
 
Yeah that last fight for the "rights" of those who didn't want to support mixed race marriages shows how this will end. It is shameful how bigotry is becoming less socially acceptable in our modern society. :roll:

Well, we've been treated to just how that poster feels about that:

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Blemonds
viewpost-right.png

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."
 
Oh, c'mon. Tell me about all Indiana's civil rights violations, and discriminations cases that are of merit prior to this legislation. It's relevant. You're claiming that this legislation is a license to do something there's no evidence of ever have occurred in any significant manner.

You don't get it. Because there NEVER WAS a law that allowed it....it absolutely is not relevant. Think about it for two seconds before your fingers start spouting.
 
The religious are only asking that their religious liberty be given equal weight in the courts consideration with other civil liberties. This Law doesn't determine outcome, it enables reasonable outcomes for all parties.

The reason I asked you the questions is because I don't believe you considered the other side. Let me give you an example: In Catholicism one receives grace via sacraments (rituals administered by the church under the authority of Christ). The most commonly thought of sacraments are baptism and communion, however matrimony is also a sacrament. This means that to the Catholic marriage as the church prescribes is an integral item of faith by which a believer receives grace and therefore in part receives salvation. Church doctrine is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Given the above information, certainly you could understand how some may believe that it would be improper to participate in a marriage (seen as a sacrament in their religious understanding) that does not conform to their standards of a righteous ceremony, while at the same time not feeling discriminatory but using discretion in their own religious life.

If one were to go to a kosher butcher and ask that they provide ham for an upcoming Easter celebration, certainly they would expect the butcher to decline, no?

You had a good post going until you got to the last line. Poor analogy that shows that you guys just don't get it. The proper analogy would be going to a Kosher deli and the butcher refusing to sell you certain products in the store because he only sells them to white people or to jews.
Providing flower or a cake is not "participating in a wedding".
 
You don't get it. Because there NEVER WAS a law that allowed it....it absolutely is not relevant. Think about it for two seconds before your fingers start spouting.

Nah. You're just making false outrage a full time job. The law in question did not invalidate other anti-discrimination statutes.
 
:shrug: the answer is simply that it's not a yes/no question, it's actually a slightly complex issue which only touches on that, which is what Pence was trying to get at. But ole George wasn't interested in that - he wanted a sound bite and he wanted one that would help kick off the War on Gays rhetoric for Hilllary 2016.

No he wasn't. He shuffled around the question worse than I've ever seen anyone dance around a question. He could have easily said what you just said. Instead he kept changing the subject and refusing to even address the issue. If Geroge wanted a "soundbite", Pence is such an absolute idiot....he has given the Democrats more than enough in the last week. So what is he? An idiot or a liar? He's clearly one or the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom