• 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

THey arent, that's not what was written.

It was about signage telling people where they could not bring their business (shop would be one example).

How would people know they werent welcome there if there was no sign displayed informing them?

Who cares? Why is that the businesses concern beyond people walking in all the time unwelcome?
 
I know, I think so too. But...should they have the right to do so, just as the public has the right to act as they see fit?

Like I said, it's a cool hypothetical to explore :)



Yup. I doubt most stores would long survive, in most locations, if they openly and publically engaged in racial or gender discrimination.

Now you might get away with "No Muslims" in many parts of the country... Muslims are not in good odor with the general public to a significant degree. Of course, spotting a Muslim is a lot harder than spotting a person of a certain race.

"No gays" would get you boycotted out of biz in most major cities, and would probably cost you some business in most towns and counties regardless, but in many places you could do that and still stay afloat.


What would you think about making it based on "real harm"? For instance, if someone can't get ANYONE within a reasonable radius of travel to bake their cake or serve them lunch or sell them stuff, then they could argue that the discrimination has actually harmed them.

OTOH if all you have to do is cross the street to XYZ bakery and they say "Sure! We'll bake you a gay cake!" (lol) then you haven't REALLY suffered much have you?
 
Who cares? Why is that the businesses concern beyond people walking in all the time unwelcome?

So you believe it's better to deal with people inside the business, confronting them, telling them you wont serve them, telling them to leave instead? Seems like that is *clearly* associating with people that you feel you have the right to avoid associating with. :doh

Rather than just posting something so that they know not to patronize the place of business? Odd...since it's a common thing for businesses to do now....so they dont spend valuable time and energy on customers they wont serve and therefore derive no $ from.
 
What would you think about making it based on "real harm"? For instance, if someone can't get ANYONE within a reasonable radius of travel to bake their cake or serve them lunch or sell them stuff, then they could argue that the discrimination has actually harmed them.

Except that your condition is not made worse by people refusing to provide you service. The worst someone can do by not providing you service is not assist you in your problems. You really can't argue that they harmed anyone since all they did was not improve someones condition with service.
 
Sorry if I dont have full context, but while I completely support a non-govt run business posting religious verses, I dont see how you can dismiss the right of people not to patronize the business based on their feelings re: the verses. Or even criticize them for it.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Imagine an argument where someone says that because of those Bible verses, they don't feel comfortable there. Were it not for those verses they would eat at that restaurant so they are, on fact, suffering discrimination in a sense and they sue the business, based on that argument to remove those signs. Heck, what if those verses on the walls were the the ones that are generally understood to condemn homosexuality. Which side would you come down on?

Imagine that, though, just opting to take your business somewhere else. That's crazy talk.
 
Yup. I doubt most stores would long survive, in most locations, if they openly and publically engaged in racial or gender discrimination.

Now you might get away with "No Muslims" in many parts of the country... Muslims are not in good odor with the general public to a significant degree. Of course, spotting a Muslim is a lot harder than spotting a person of a certain race.

"No gays" would get you boycotted out of biz in most major cities, and would probably cost you some business in most towns and counties regardless, but in many places you could do that and still stay afloat.


What would you think about making it based on "real harm"? For instance, if someone can't get ANYONE within a reasonable radius of travel to bake their cake or serve them lunch or sell them stuff, then they could argue that the discrimination has actually harmed them.

OTOH if all you have to do is cross the street to XYZ bakery and they say "Sure! We'll bake you a gay cake!" (lol) then you haven't REALLY suffered much have you?

Are you discounting that if *I* or other people saw such signs, many of us, whether gay or Muslim or not, would still refuse to take our business to such places.

I think basing it on 'real harm' is too much beauracracy and would be too objective. If people want to discriminate...let them. And see how they fare. I think it would be fascinating.
 
So you believe it's better to deal with people inside the business, confronting them, telling them you wont serve them, telling them to leave instead? Seems like that is *clearly* associating with people that you feel you have the right to avoid associating with. :doh

Rather than just posting something so that they know not to patronize the place of business? Odd...since it's a common thing for businesses to do now....so they dont spend valuable time and energy on customers they wont serve and therefore derive no $ from.

I didn't say it was smart, but why shouldn't they have the right to not post who they serve? If they want to deal with people that they don't want to serve all the time that is their problem. I personally think it's stupid to not take the necessary steps to avoid the situation, but it's their business, not mine.
 
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Imagine an argument where someone says that because of those Bible verses, they don't feel comfortable there. Were it not for those verses they would eat at that restaurant so they are, on fact, suffering discrimination in a sense and they sue the business, based on that argument to remove those signs. Heck, what if those verses on the walls were the the ones that are generally understood to condemn homosexuality. Which side would you come down on?

Imagine that, though, just opting to take your business somewhere else. That's crazy talk.

I dont think that changes my response at all. They dont have to suffer at all....there is no right to not be offended.

And again, it's a perfect example of letting the market, the people, decide. Do you see religious verses up in businesses? Yes. Do you see anti-Muslim or anti-gay or racist signage up in businesses? Not a whole lot...because that would harm business.
 
Are you discounting that if *I* or other people saw such signs, many of us, whether gay or Muslim or not, would still refuse to take our business to such places.

I think basing it on 'real harm' is too much beauracracy and would be too objective. If people want to discriminate...let them. And see how they fare. I think it would be fascinating.



No, I'm taking into account the 'sympathizer boycott'. I think that it would vary based on demographics: local culture, and how cosmopolitan the local community is.


You could have a "no gays" sign in my home town and probably still stay in business. Some people would boycott but some would actively support you. It probably would balance out near equally, or down only a little.

In Atlanta (same region), you'd be out of business pretty quickly I'd think. Atlanta is far more cosmopolitan than my semi-rural county.
 
I didn't say it was smart, but why shouldn't they have the right to not post who they serve? If they want to deal with people that they don't want to serve all the time that is their problem. I personally think it's stupid to not take the necessary steps to avoid the situation, but it's their business, not mine.

It's not fair to the customers, to come somewhere when they could go elsewhere, to go in and shop, etc, and then be told to leave. It wastes their time. I realize you dont care about that but you'd prefer there would be no business licenses or oversight at all. No health dept inspections, no safety inspections, so really, as usual your opinions are in the realm of fantasy. As you said, it's not smart and most would not do it. You like to make ridiculous statements with no real practicability like they are the libertarian High Ground and realistic and 'sound good. They are not.
 
I dont think that changes my response at all. They dont have to suffer at all....there is no right to not be offended.

And again, it's a perfect example of letting the market, the people, decide. Do you see religious verses up in businesses? Yes. Do you see anti-Muslim or anti-gay or racist signage up in businesses? Not a whole lot...because that would harm business.

Fair enough and I say this as a Christian, I would not go into a business that would decide that my gay or minority friends are not welcomed. In fact, with very rare exception, I think such a business would not be in business very long and I'd be fine with that.
 
No, I'm taking into account the 'sympathizer boycott'. I think that it would vary based on demographics: local culture, and how cosmopolitan the local community is.


You could have a "no gays" sign in my home town and probably still stay in business. Some people would boycott but some would actively support you. It probably would balance out near equally, or down only a little.

In Atlanta (same region), you'd be out of business pretty quickly I'd think. Atlanta is far more cosmopolitan than my semi-rural county.

You'd be surprised....many would see it even as a slippery slope.....who will they discriminate against next? But I dont believe most Americans will accept blatant discrimination...they like it hidden in the shadows where very obviously, it lingers still.

Or maybe I'd be surprised....it is speculation of course.
 
You'd be surprised....many would see it even as a slippery slope.....who will they discriminate against next? But I dont believe most Americans will accept blatant discrimination...they like it hidden in the shadows where very obviously, it lingers still.

Or maybe I'd be surprised....it is speculation of course.


Yup, and for the most part it will probably stay speculation.

Still though, if some business owner/operator "doesn't like my kind", I'd really like to know that BEFORE I pay them to serve me lunch, bake my cake, or photograph my event. I'd take my biz elsewhere if for no other reason than I'd prolly get better service. :D
 
It's not fair to the customers, to come somewhere when they could go elsewhere, to go in and shop, etc, and then be told to leave. It wastes their time. I realize you dont care about that but you'd prefer there would be no business licenses or oversight at all. No health dept inspections, no safety inspections, so really, as usual your opinions are in the realm of fantasy. As you said, it's not smart and most would not do it. You like to make ridiculous statements with no real practicability like they are the libertarian High Ground and realistic and 'sound good. They are not.

I have said before that food inspection can be done by the market place. It's not like the government does anything in terms of food inspection and notification of inspection that the market can't do.

Anyway, if all you have is that it is not fair then I can't say I'm all that moved by your argument. You're not somehow owed an easy time finding willing sellers.
 
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 agree, i just cant help but wonder if that wasnt the intent of the bill what was its purpose for not mirroring the other bills more? ANd what was the reason for flat out rejecting some restrictions the other bills already had.

As soon as the verbiage was that general, it was expanded beyond a person and government into business and public and the rejection of civil rights and or sexual orientation exemptions things got real shady real fast and thats why many people were/are greatly concerned.

ayway i hope its fixed properly. I still dont understand its need and what it does that the constitution and anti-discrimination laws dont already do for me if i lived there but as long as the horrible grey areas are fixed I do agree with you, no harm no foul
 
Yup, and for the most part it will probably stay speculation.

Still though, if some business owner/operator "doesn't like my kind", I'd really like to know that BEFORE I pay them to serve me lunch, bake my cake, or photograph my event. I'd take my biz elsewhere if for no other reason than I'd prolly get better service. :D

Heh, that made me think of this.

funny-memes-revenge-is-coming.jpg
 
I will disagree with you on that. It is due to the marketplace, which partially consists of the states of Connecticut and Washington and the other entities refusing to do business in Indiana, that caused this change of heart to come about. There is no court involved at this point in time.

In this particular instance the courts aren't involved (yet) but they have been in the past and there is no reason to think they won't be in the future whether legislation like what we had here in AZ and what Pence recently signed are enacted or not.

My personal opinion on this matter is that whether I agree with someone's position on an issue or not I don't like to see them bullied and that's exactly what I perceive as happening to a few small business owners. On the whole this seems to be a rather small issue made huge by activists and media. I simply haven't seen any evidence of widespread denial of services to homosexuals or blacks or Jews or anyone else but when one incident pops up it suddenly becomes a media firestorm.
 
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 especially liked this part
"This law does not give anyone the right to discriminate...This law does not give anyone the right to deny services," he said.

I wonder what the **** he's been smoking, 'cause I want some.
 
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.

Why do we need government involved for that? Let businesses open and serve or not serve who they please, and let the local community decide to support them or not. No need for Big Brother to step in.
 
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?


in the situation you described the only people practicing illegal discrimination and violating the rights of others would be the bakery. Theres no other answer based on legality and facts.
now people could feel that they were dicks for choosing that bakery (but that also implies every christian or christian bakery would choose to break the law or think they cant provide service to people based on their religion, millions do not feel that way and it also implies that theres no chance of the couple themselves being Christians and wanting a christian themed wedding cake, there are christian churches doing gay marriages)

but again to answer your question theres only one party partaking in illegal discrimination, thats the bakery
even with law and facts not involved id be curious to see the logic that the couple practiced discrimination.
 
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?

ooops i kind of had the same response in ways
 
in the situation you described the only people practicing illegal discrimination and violating the rights of others would be the bakery. Theres no other answer based on legality and facts.
now people could feel that they were dicks for choosing that bakery (but that also implies every christian or christian bakery would choose to break the law or think they cant provide service to people based on their religion, millions do not feel that way and it also implies that theres no chance of the couple themselves being Christians and wanting a christian themed wedding cake, there are christian churches doing gay marriages)

but again to answer your question theres only one party partaking in illegal discrimination, thats the bakery
even with law and facts not involved id be curious to see the logic that the couple practiced discrimination.

Shocking. Let's just save time here and acknowledge that there is zero scenario where you'd actually side with a Christian business owner over a gay person regardless of the presented facts.

Anyway, I knew this thread would attract you like a moth to a flame so you can make speeches about how awesome and enlightened you are and that it would also be my cur to bow out of it. Have fun "likes" whoring.
 
1.)Shocking. Let's just save time here and acknowledge that there is zero scenario where you'd actually side with a Christian business owner over a gay person regardless of the presented facts.
2.)Anyway, I knew this thread would attract you like a moth to a flame so you can make speeches about how awesome and enlightened you are and that it would also be my cur to bow out of it. Have fun "likes" whoring.

1.)completely wrong assumption as usual, youd have to be more specific but id side with laws and rights. If i didnt like the laws and rights id simply state that and say its still law and rights currently, its just how im. If you have one fact that supports otherwise feel free to post it, thanks
2.) really? you knew that me being a frequent poster would post in high profile current topic about equal rights WOW, how did you know :lmao:
also can you point out the parts where i claimed to be awesome? oh yeah thats another made up lie born in imagination and fantasy
thanks for the post about me, it really, really exposes things.

maybe in the next post post about the topic and then support that post with facts
are you claiming there is illegal discrimination in any other direction?
 
I agree, i just cant help but wonder if that wasnt the intent of the bill what was its purpose for not mirroring the other bills more? ANd what was the reason for flat out rejecting some restrictions the other bills already had.

As soon as the verbiage was that general, it was expanded beyond a person and government into business and public and the rejection of civil rights and or sexual orientation exemptions things got real shady real fast and thats why many people were/are greatly concerned.

ayway i hope its fixed properly. I still dont understand its need and what it does that the constitution and anti-discrimination laws dont already do for me if i lived there but as long as the horrible grey areas are fixed I do agree with you, no harm no foul

I'm jaded. I think that was the intention of the bill and those who have voiced support of "religious freedom" to discriminate saw it that way too.

There is some skepticism in the media whether "the fix" will actually include LGBT persons. I hope it will be fixed like it should. I've read why the 1993 federal law was passed and it seemed a good reason related to religious practices of employees. The Indiana law is not the same as the federal one.
 
Back
Top Bottom