• 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!

Gov. Mike Pence: Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won't be allowed

Your use of the word "campaign" is inappropriate. Churches have doctrine and that has been plain for centuries.

Then you shouldnt have used it in your claim that I was uninformed re: such things occuring in the past.

And as a more general term, it actually does work...that's why I explained more detail, even in my last post....so you'd be able to support your claim and show me how uninformed I am.
 
What line do you see that needs to be drawn?


Seems pretty clear.

We'll see. I suspect resistance will concentrate on those services whose provision would require the provider to participate in the conscience-offending activity. A wedding planner, for example, or a caterer asked to provide servers.
 
Instead of carving out protections for one group or another, all that needs to be done is have Congress apply the accommodation laws to a limited number of businesses like hospitals, restaurants, hotel/motels, gas stations etc. and exempt business owners. Those businesses who are in remote areas should be under accommodation laws to ensure everyone in that area could not be denied.

According to the most remote towns in this country, the top ten have multiple listings for bakeries. Even the most remote, which is Barrow, AK.

Top 10 Remote Small Towns

I think that is all that needs to be said and makes the wheels on the gay agenda bus go flat.
 
Then you shouldnt have used it in your claim that I was uninformed re: such things occuring in the past.

And as a more general term, it actually does work...that's why I explained more detail, even in my last post....so you'd be able to support your claim and show me how uninformed I am.

If I understand you correctly, your claim has been that religious bodies opposed to gay marriage because they see it as sin have nonetheless sanctioned marriages by other groups whose behavior they also call sinful. You mentioned fornicators and adulterers (perhaps among others). Fornication (sex outside marriage) fails as an example because for the church marriage is a proper remedy for fornication. For the church gay marriage cannot be a similar remedy for gay fornication because gay sex inside a gay marriage remains a sin.

Adultery is a better discussion. Generally those denominations most accepting of gay marriage are also those most likely to consecrate marriages between parties who have been divorced. The denominations most opposed to gay marriage are also those least accepting of marriages between divorced parties. Thus, all are generally being true to their convictions.
 
Adultery is a better discussion. Generally those denominations most accepting of gay marriage are also those most likely to consecrate marriages between parties who have been divorced. The denominations most opposed to gay marriage are also those least accepting of marriages between divorced parties. Thus, all are generally being true to their convictions.


hmm really are you sure about that?

Evangelicals are more likely to be divorced than the average American—even Americans who claim no religion.

This unexpected claim comes from an unexpected source: three researchers at Baylor University.

Jerry Park, Joshua Tom, and Brita Andercheck report that about 17 percent of white conservative Protestants and 16 percent of black Protestants are divorced, compared to 14 percent of all Americans.

They point to the research of demographers Jennifer Glass and Philip Levchak, who argue that the evangelical encouragement to marry young and have more babies, along with discouragement to obtain higher education, is to blame. A strong evangelical presence increases divorce rates across the board, Glass reported.

"The common conservative argument that strong religion leads to strong families does not hold up," stated Park, Tom, and Andercheck in their February 4 report for the Council of Contemporary Families.

However, Bradford Wilcox, sociology professor at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, disagrees.

"The claim … that religion doesn't help marriage is bunk," he said. "In terms of people being integrated into a religious community—be it Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish—there is a strong correlation between the couple's integration and marital quality."

Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage? | Christianity Today
 
We'll see. I suspect resistance will concentrate on those services whose provision would require the provider to participate in the conscience-offending activity. A wedding planner, for example, or a caterer asked to provide servers.

We will have to wait and see if someone brings a case.
 
hmm really are you sure about that?

Evangelicals are more likely to be divorced than the average American—even Americans who claim no religion.

This unexpected claim comes from an unexpected source: three researchers at Baylor University.

Jerry Park, Joshua Tom, and Brita Andercheck report that about 17 percent of white conservative Protestants and 16 percent of black Protestants are divorced, compared to 14 percent of all Americans.

They point to the research of demographers Jennifer Glass and Philip Levchak, who argue that the evangelical encouragement to marry young and have more babies, along with discouragement to obtain higher education, is to blame. A strong evangelical presence increases divorce rates across the board, Glass reported.

"The common conservative argument that strong religion leads to strong families does not hold up," stated Park, Tom, and Andercheck in their February 4 report for the Council of Contemporary Families.

However, Bradford Wilcox, sociology professor at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, disagrees.

"The claim … that religion doesn't help marriage is bunk," he said. "In terms of people being integrated into a religious community—be it Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish—there is a strong correlation between the couple's integration and marital quality."

Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage? | Christianity Today

The sociology doesn't interest me either way. The discussion was about doctrine.
 
Instead of carving out protections for one group or another, all that needs to be done is have Congress apply the accommodation laws to a limited number of businesses like hospitals, restaurants, hotel/motels, gas stations etc. and exempt business owners. Those businesses who are in remote areas should be under accommodation laws to ensure everyone in that area could not be denied.

According to the most remote towns in this country, the top ten have multiple listings for bakeries. Even the most remote, which is Barrow, AK.

Top 10 Remote Small Towns

I think that is all that needs to be said and makes the wheels on the gay agenda bus go flat.

How about the wheels on the racist bus? Do you think those will start spinning?

What do you think of this idea?:

It would be interesting to see what would happen if people were indeed given license to discriminate against serving the people they felt they should not have to do business with.

They would apply for a different type of business license and then be required to post the group(s) they do not want to serve in a publicly visible place, just like 'no shoes, no shirt, no service.' Like, "we dont serve women here.' Or 'we dont serve Jews here." Or 'we dont serve gays here.' Or 'we dont serve blacks here.'

That would be perfectly legal with that type of business license. Then we could see if society in general would support these businesses or not. The fewer businesses with similar services/products in competition in an area would affect this as well but I'd be willing to bet people would go out of their way to avoid such businesses if they disagreed with what was posted. I know I would. I do it now regarding 'no guns allowed' signs even when not carrying.
 
Discrimination? How so?
One part of the law could dependent upon the Judges leaning rule in favor of a person refusing service to gays.
I had posted that before in one of the threads.
I am at work now and too busy to look for it. It was the NY Times or Wash Post – cannot recall.
Just as we saw a State Supreme Court Justice tried to overrule a Federal Court ruling on SSM.
I am not deflecting. But we saw lawyers on both sides stating opposing positions. From there it was clear to me the law was in need of change.
As noted below SSM is a hot button issue.

Gay marriage is Alabama judge's latest social battle - CNN.com

Moore sent last-minute instructions Sunday night to Alabama's probate judges, ordering them to ignore a federal ruling that made their state the 37th to allow same-sex marriages, in favor of a state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
As the same-sex marriage issue takes center stage -- the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this spring -- Moore's move could turn him into the target, as he was in 2003. Supporters of same-sex marriage have long called it a human rights issue and Moore's criticism of this federal ruling recalls southern resistance to civil rights developments decades ago.
 
Discrimination? How so?

Trying to find that darn link
Here are opinions on what was missing from the law.
Indiana does not have laws barring discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

Is the controversial Indiana law ‘the same’ as a law backed by Obama? - The Washington Post

The Indiana law has a potentially lower threshold – “likely to be substantially burdened” — while the Texas law also made clear that the RFRA does not trump existing civil rights law: “Except as provided in Subsection (b), this chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution under a federal or state civil rights law.”
Moreover, Indiana (unlike many other states, including Illinois) does not have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, though there are gay rights laws in the cities of Indianapolis, Bloomington and South Bend. The fact that lawmakers rejected anti-discrimination clauses added to the anxiety of gay-rights advocates. (In Georgia, when an anti-discrimination clause was successfully added to a proposed RFRA, advocates of the legislation pulled the bill entirely.)
 
Trying to find that darn link
Here are opinions on what was missing from the law.
Indiana does not have laws barring discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

Is the controversial Indiana law ‘the same’ as a law backed by Obama? - The Washington Post

I saw that in my research yesterday. Even with "the fix" discrimination can occur and because of that, Angie's List reiterated that they will not be expanding operations in Indiana, as they had previously planned.



Angie's List rejects 'religious freedom' law revision, calls it 'insufficient'
Angie's List calls the revision to the "religious freedom" law "insufficient," becoming the first major local company to reject the deal hammered out by Indiana legislators, the business community and others.

"Our position is that this 'fix' is insufficient," Angie's CEO Bill Oesterle said in a statement Thursday morning. "There was no repeal of RFRA and no end to discrimination of homosexuals in Indiana."


...

"That's just not right and that's the real issue here. Our employees deserve to live, work and travel with open accommodations in any part of the state."
 
Yes discrimination can occur. Why does Indiana not have sexual orientation protections?
As they do not at the State level, many took this as an attack on gays.

I'd say Indiana doesn't have protections for sexual and gender preference because the governor and legislature is in the hands of the GOP. Pence did not want to go so far as to reverse the RFRA and put in those protections. Some counties or cities do though and the RFRA, as passed and signed the first time, would have eliminated any local protections.

Yes, very many took this as an attack on all LGBT persons.
 
Last edited:
Yes discrimination can occur. Why does Indiana not have sexual orientation protections?
As they do not at the State level, many took this as an attack on gays.

Indiana does not have sexual orientation protections because a majority of Indiana voters do not want them.
 
Indiana does not have sexual orientation protections because a majority of Indiana voters do not want them.
So the majority ruled that people can be discriminated against.
 
Why? I guess the same reason CNN talked for months about the missing plane, or michael jackson's death etc. It's just headline grabbing. There is an employment protection bill in the US house (it passed the senate if you can believe it) that is stalled because repubs want to add religious exemption. Well guess what, that would defeat the whole purpose.

Some of these conflicts are unavoidable. You just gotta decide, should someone lose their job cause their boss has a religious objection to their sexuality? This fear led my gay uncle to marry and live a lie for sake of his boss' prejudice, then divorce and take another job across the country once he was able. Who the hell wins in that scenario?

Ultimately what i harken back to when i hear "nobody has a right to dictate another's actions" is jim crow south. You know, desegregation meant forcing colleges, restaurants, bus drivers to do things against their will. Now you might say race, well, that's an identity not a behavior. This "rfra" makes no distinction between gay couples getting married and the teenager who is gay, never been in a relationship, and already has it bad enough cause he lives in ****ty indiana. All are targets

Personally though, i would not want to do business for something like a wedding cake with someone like that, nor would i trust them to do it right. Strategically, the fallout has been more trouble than it's worth.

I wish it never happened, so people stop using the bakery as a strawman and focus on the real problems like the hateful intent behind this indiana "rfra", the doctor who wouldn't treat the infant of the gay couple (depriving necessities), employment and housing discrimination. None of that is in the bible to my knowledge, so i see it as they're lying when they hide their bigotry behind their 'faith,' and i would think that would upset a lot of Christians like yourself who are gay friendly

How am i asking someone to 'endorse'/'enable'/participate in my sexuality or my sex life when i go to buy milk? Or as the poster above said, i got in a car crash and the hospital won't treat me cause i'm gay? What does one have to do with the other?

Tell me that didn't really happen. I can think of no way that could even be justified in someone's own conscience.
 
Tell me that didn't really happen. I can think of no way that could even be justified in someone's own conscience.

Yes it happened in Roseville MI, a town with no anti discrimination law and a state that still may pass its own "RFRA" (eliminating anti discrimination laws in other cities, including my own)

Pediatrician wouldn't care for baby with 2 moms

The 'doctor' had someone else at the office break the news and on the day of the appointment, in public
 
Back
Top Bottom