• 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

Gina

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
44,019
Reaction score
29,303
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
A short while ago Gov. Mike Pence held a press conference to say that he asking for legislation by the end of the week to clarify the RFRA law he signed last week. Key in his statement:
He said RFRA was about "religious liberty, not discrimination."


Pence also said the law does not give anyone the right to deny services to someone.


"I don't believe for a minute that it was the intention of the General Assembly to discriminate and it certainly wasn't my intent," Pence said.

"This law does not give anyone the right to discriminate...This law does not give anyone the right to deny services," he said.

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

Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.
 
A short while ago Gov. Mike Pence held a press conference to say that he asking for legislation by the end of the week to clarify the RFRA law he signed last week. Key in his statement:


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

Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.

What is scary is that we think it good to discriminate against people for their religious practice and conscientious objection. That is something the US didn't even do, when it was a question of national security and draftees could refuse participating in war.
 
In other news,

Indiana Governor Stunned By How Many People Seem to Have Gay Friends

INDIANAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report)—Indiana Governor Mike Pence is “stunned and amazed” that so many people appear to have gay friends, Pence has confirmed.

Speaking to reporters in his office in Indianapolis, Pence said that he made the astonishing discovery about gay friends late last week.

“A lot of everyday people have gay friends, and they’re not afraid to call and/or e-mail you to tell you that,” Pence said. “To be honest, I’m still trying to process it all.”

...
 
I read "Dang, they got us, now we have to scramble to save face."
 
Yes, freedom is so terrible that everyone freaked out about it. This country is so ****ed up, and it's not because of the government, but because of people like you.
 
A short while ago Gov. Mike Pence held a press conference to say that he asking for legislation by the end of the week to clarify the RFRA law he signed last week. Key in his statement:


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

Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.

I've got a question about all this.

Let's say that there are 10 bakeries in the local area. Nine of the bakeries are pretty generic but one specializes in Christian themed goods. They primarily make cakes, cookies and cupcakes decorated with angels, crosses and other Christian themed adornment. They don't have a sign on their door or anything that says "Christians Only" but it's pretty obvious what their business model is. Now a gay couple decides to get married. They have been very active in the "gay rights" movement and want to make a statement so they intentionally choose this particular baker to provide a cake for their wedding because they are sure that there will be resistance. Sure enough, the Christian baker turns the job down based on their religious convictions.

Now here's the question, in this scenario who is discriminating against whom?
 
Nice to see that it seems public outcry was enough to make a difference. And of course, the threats from other states, businesses, etc to rescind their activities in the state.
 
I've got a question about all this.

Let's say that there are 10 bakeries in the local area. Nine of the bakeries are pretty generic but one specializes in Christian themed goods. They primarily make cakes, cookies and cupcakes decorated with angels, crosses and other Christian themed adornment. They don't have a sign on their door or anything that says "Christians Only" but it's pretty obvious what their business model is. Now a gay couple decides to get married. They have been very active in the "gay rights" movement and want to make a statement so they intentionally choose this particular baker to provide a cake for their wedding because they are sure that there will be resistance. Sure enough, the Christian baker turns the job down based on their religious convictions.

Now here's the question, in this scenario who is discriminating against whom?



gee, and that's not happening now?
 
Indiana does not have a choice. They went too far given how the language of the bill can be interpreted, ended up called on it by plenty of groups, and there could be economic concerns if they do not clean up the effort. This was such a mess that sister legislation under consideration here in Georgia is now has unclear disposition. Last I heard here, we are doing in committee what Indiana has to do after the fact... scramble for alternative language that does not allow open discrimination of the LGBT community by businesses.

I'll say it again, this was all avoidable. But now that we have gone down this road expect the courts to fill with all sorts of challenges no matter what Indiana (and a few other States) does.
 
As I just wrote, the people...and larger organizations...spoke out and indicated they would remove their business and other activities perhaps, from the state.

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.
 
A short while ago Gov. Mike Pence held a press conference to say that he asking for legislation by the end of the week to clarify the RFRA law he signed last week. Key in his statement:


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

Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.

Hi Gina. :) It's an interesting question. Do we believe people should be able to operate their business according to their own moral/ethical beliefs or does someone lay down those rights as soon as they start a business? I really don't know the right answer or if there even is one. There's a restaurant close by where I work that has Bible verses and sayings posted all over it. Should they be mandated to take that all down if someone says they're offended? The reality of life, I think, is that two very valid worthwhile rights can sometimes conflict and one must necessarily give way to the other and that's always going to cause tension.
 
A short while ago Gov. Mike Pence held a press conference to say that he asking for legislation by the end of the week to clarify the RFRA law he signed last week.
There is nothing like shooting first and asking questions later...
If nothing else this proves the stupidity of the Indiana legislators and governor who managed to pass a law that need to be revised so soon.
 
I've got a question about all this.

Let's say that there are 10 bakeries in the local area. Nine of the bakeries are pretty generic but one specializes in Christian themed goods. They primarily make cakes, cookies and cupcakes decorated with angels, crosses and other Christian themed adornment. They don't have a sign on their door or anything that says "Christians Only" but it's pretty obvious what their business model is. Now a gay couple decides to get married. They have been very active in the "gay rights" movement and want to make a statement so they intentionally choose this particular baker to provide a cake for their wedding because they are sure that there will be resistance. Sure enough, the Christian baker turns the job down based on their religious convictions.

Now here's the question, in this scenario who is discriminating against whom?

It could also be in that scenario that:

1. The gay couple are themself christians and like the christian theme.

2. They are openminded and don't believe that all christians hate gays.

Also that if you live in a small town and their are only one bakery should then redheads, blacks, blue eyed or people taller then 6 feet have to go to another town if they want bread and cakes if the owner for some reason want to discriminate against whos groups?
 
A short while ago Gov. Mike Pence held a press conference to say that he asking for legislation by the end of the week to clarify the RFRA law he signed last week. Key in his statement:


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

Ok then. If that is the "fix" he signs, we're good to go and all arguments to the contrary, that the law was intended to permit the denial of service to anyone under the color of religious freedom, were in error.

Only liberals assume freedom = discrimination. What does that tell you?
 
It could also be in that scenario that:

1. The gay couple are themself christians and like the christian theme.

2. They are openminded and don't believe that all christians hate gays.

Also that if you live in a small town and their are only one bakery should then redheads, blacks, blue eyed or people taller then 6 feet have to go to another town if they want bread and cakes if the owner for some reason want to discriminate against whos groups?

That's pretty much avoiding the whole question. In the scenario I presented who is discriminating against whom? More importantly, should the rights of the person or people who are being discriminated against be protected?
 
As I just wrote, the people...and larger organizations...spoke out and indicated they would remove their business and other activities perhaps, from the state.

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.

I would too, for real, and I think calling for and organizing boycotts or demonstrations would be a perfectly valid response (just as organizing in support of that business would also be).
 
Only liberals assume freedom = discrimination. What does that tell you?

You have the freedom to discriminate, you just can't run a discriminatory business. Besides which, there is no religious justification for denying service to gays. Stop blowing the religious freedom horn and just own the fact that you hate people that look / act differently than you.
 
I've got a question about all this.

Let's say that there are 10 bakeries in the local area. Nine of the bakeries are pretty generic but one specializes in Christian themed goods. They primarily make cakes, cookies and cupcakes decorated with angels, crosses and other Christian themed adornment. They don't have a sign on their door or anything that says "Christians Only" but it's pretty obvious what their business model is. Now a gay couple decides to get married. They have been very active in the "gay rights" movement and want to make a statement so they intentionally choose this particular baker to provide a cake for their wedding because they are sure that there will be resistance. Sure enough, the Christian baker turns the job down based on their religious convictions.

Now here's the question, in this scenario who is discriminating against whom?

The Christian bakery would be discriminating against the gay couple. The gay couple would be not be discriminating but they are, yes, making a statement.

I have an issue with scenarios like this. The argument has been made over and over, let business owners discriminate and if the marketplace of consumers doesn't like it, that business will suffer. The marketplace will speak and all will be righted.

So, here we have businesses who are doing just that, and there is an outcry when the marketplace speaks.

It soul crushing to hear my LGBT and non-white family, friends and acquaintances tell me of the bigotry they are routinely confronted with, so I will not condemn those who choose to confront it. Despite the quoted scenario.

So have at me.
 
Hi Gina. :) It's an interesting question. Do we believe people should be able to operate their business according to their own moral/ethical beliefs or does someone lay down those rights as soon as they start a business?
I really do not think it is a question of rights. Think of it this way. A person can go into the middle of nowhere and open a business and fail but can do pretty much anything (s)he pleases.
Now the same person chooses to open the same business in the "middle of society" because that offers a clear benefit, safety, good environment for business, etc. etc. It is only right to "have a price" for that benefit and that price is regulations and laws that protect society while anyone conducts their business. Also important to note is that safety and order in society must come first and justly so, otherwise who would want to do business there. Part of that order is nondiscrimination. If a person is so devout to a particular faith that they do want to pick and choose, there are ways for them to do it. Unfortunately many want the benefit of doing business in a safe open society but without contributing to it.
 
I would too, for real, and I think calling for and organizing boycotts or demonstrations would be a perfectly valid response (just as organizing in support of that business would also be).

Exactly. If people want this particular 'freedom' back, then they can have it. And if it's that important to them, I dont see why they wouldnt post it.

I mean, if you dont really want to serve blacks or Muslims, for ex., then you should have that 'freedom' back but you do have to post it, otherwise how will such people know to avoid your business?
 
You have the freedom to discriminate, you just can't run a discriminatory business. Besides which, there is no religious justification for denying service to gays. Stop blowing the religious freedom horn and just own the fact that you hate people that look / act differently than you.

Meh, you're just opposite side of that very same coin.
 
Hi Gina. :) It's an interesting question. Do we believe people should be able to operate their business according to their own moral/ethical beliefs or does someone lay down those rights as soon as they start a business? I really don't know the right answer or if there even is one. There's a restaurant close by where I work that has Bible verses and sayings posted all over it. Should they be mandated to take that all down if someone says they're offended? The reality of life, I think, is that two very valid worthwhile rights can sometimes conflict and one must necessarily give way to the other and that's always going to cause tension.

If they willingly apply to the state for a business license, they must abide by the guidelines and laws pertaining to that license. Or they have the freedom to choose some other business or state or place to open that business.

That's why I suggest a business license that does allow for discrimination specifically....which must be displayed publicly so that the public is able to abide by that business's stated choices.

(I mean I 'suggested' it for the purposes of discussion)
 
Last edited:
What is scary is that we think it good to discriminate against people for their religious practice and conscientious objection. That is something the US didn't even do, when it was a question of national security and draftees could refuse participating in war.



Conscientious Objectors were allowed to not carry a weapon and not fight. My BIL was one such in Vietnam. He went in when drafted as a C.O. and served as an unarmed medic for a front line infantry unit.


We do have a history of trying to take into consideration the honest objections-of-conscience held by citizens, whether religious or otherwise. Some reasonable compromise is not unjust.


If a doctor declines to perform an abortion, he can refer the patient to another physician. If a wedding photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding (or a Klan wedding, or a skinhead wedding, or a biker wedding, or a Black Panther wedding), let him refer the prospective customer to another service provider and no harm is done.
 
Back
Top Bottom