• 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

As in what?

The argument appears to be that bakeries provide cake choices people can pick from, so if the bakery simply stopped doing that then the entire argument against them would fall apart.
 
That doesn't work either. If someone comes into my office and tells me that they want to pay me $30k to do their tax return but their income is from heroin trafficking I'm still going to ask them to leave even though it would be perfectly legal for me to do the return.

Well, that's a little extreme in an attempt to discount my suggestion. I'm just curious - how does one document their income from heroin trafficking? Do people give receipts for such activity?
 
So does that mean all the baker has to do is make every cake custom? It would seem to me that if every cake was custom then people like yourself couldn't use the "but it's in the book" argument.

Custom in what sense...be specific. Its difficult to respond in a vacuum.
 
The argument appears to be that bakeries provide cake choices people can pick from, so if the bakery simply stopped doing that then the entire argument against them would fall apart.

You are being so vague its difficult to respond. So...if I understand you correctly you are saying the bakery doesn't offer any specific kind of cake...like a book with pictures of decorations and just makes a cake according to the description of the purchaser? If that is what you saying...the same rules apply. They wouldn't be able to turn someone away simply because they were black or gay or "icky".
 
Custom in what sense...be specific. Its difficult to respond in a vacuum.

Custom, as in, everything is chosen for the cake. There is no cakes that they make for wedding that people can pick from, no predetermined items that they provide, just nothing but we offer wedding cakes and we get to say what will do and what we will not do for it. In short, every cake starts with a blank slate and nothing is a given.

The best your side can do is to say they have to make the cake anyway, but your supporting evidence for your argument is destroyed. Don't worry, you guys aren't smart enough for me to not come up with a solution around you the rest of the way.
 
Last edited:
If your religion requires you to be a bigot and discriminate fine...just don't open a business. You don't get to write your own rules and hide behind your religion just because you open shop.

What part of the Constitution allows the government to require you to passively give up your rights in order to participate in commerce?
 
There isn't much discrimination anymore, but the reason for that is most of it was made illegal and business has adapted to that - it's become a marketplace norm. For the vast majority of the population rules protect sexual orientation in addition to race, religion, etc. The point is the laws reflect our beliefs as a community and our expectations and they have worked. It would be IMO a huge mistake to assume because the laws have worked that we can repeal those laws. If we accept discrimination as legal, we are (as I see it) sending a community signal that it's OK. That's a step in the wrong direction.

I agree, our laws have gone a long way towards eliminating discrimination. We just have to go a bit farther and indeed, repealing any of it would be a mistake. Just look at the response to this law in Indiana. There is an entire discussion based on how iron clad it was instituting discrimination that could not be overturned by the judiciary. People jumped all over this assuring us that legal discrimination was the intention of the law. So, no. Repeal would send our society catapulting backwards.
 
No. I am speaking of religion. No religion says "follow my rules why you are at worship." Religion is a 24/7, 365 prospect.

At worship, yes. Not work. Worship is not involved in operating a business.
 
What part of the Constitution allows the government to require you to passively give up your rights in order to participate in commerce?

What rights are you being "passively required to give up"?
 
Custom, as in, everything is chosen for the cake. There is no cakes that they make for wedding that people can pick from, no predetermined items that they provide, just nothing but we offer wedding cakes and we get to say what will do and what we will not do for it. In short, every cake starts with a blank slate and nothing is a given.

The best your side can do is to say they have to make the cake anyway, but your supporting evidence for this is destroyed. Don't worry, you guys aren't smart enough for me to not come up with a solution around you the rest of the way.

Not at all. It doesn't change the scenario. They open their shop to the public for business. They provide cakes. They can't refuse to provide a cake just because the person is black or brown or asian or muslim or gay or........
 
What part of the Constitution allows the government to require you to passively give up your rights in order to participate in commerce?

Answer: Nowhere.

And to all that think that Indiana is going to tweak the language, the truth is that the purpose of the law is to provide a legal remedy (Defense) for those that turn away business based on their religious convictions. I don't see how you can tweak that premise without shredding the entire law? I'll listen to possible scenarios though, anyone want to share just how they are going to tweak it whilst maintaining a law that provide for religious expression as a defense?

I'm listening?

Tim-
 
I'm sorry, but no. It doesn't work that way.

Our society does not permit discrimination. In Indiana, if one is to believe Gov. Pence, that will include LGBT persons.
 
What part of the Constitution allows the government to require you to passively give up your rights in order to participate in commerce?

Going in business is a personal choice. No one mandated it did they. It also comes with a host of rules, regulations and laws that you must adhere to.
You can then seek employment, wherever you wish and adhere to company polices that prevent discrimination in the workplace.
Take your pick.
 
What rights are you being "passively required to give up"?

How about the right to exclusiveness, how about the right to decide who will get your labor, service, property, association, and contract. How about all of those rights I just mentioned.
 
Our society does not permit discrimination. In Indiana, if one is to believe Gov. Pence, that will include LGBT persons.

Nonsense, of course it does. Our government cannot discriminate, but our society does all day and everyday, and that's a good thing.

Tim-
 
Oh for crying out loud, quit playing stupid.

I'm not playing stupid. What part of the first Amendment are you referring to? Free speech?

If so, how is the government infringing on their free speech rights?

Freedom of religion? The government is not infringing on their right to practice their religion.
 
Not at all. It doesn't change the scenario. They open their shop to the public for business. They provide cakes. They can't refuse to provide a cake just because the person is black or brown or asian or muslim or gay or........

I see, so the fact that they have a catalog of cakes people can choose from makes no difference at all and yet your side acts like it matters. Figures. What do we call that? Oh right, dishonesty.
 
How about the right to exclusiveness, how about the right to decide who will get your labor, service, property, association, and contract. How about all of those rights I just mentioned.

Constitutional right to exclusiveness? Where is THAT found? You have no RIGHT to decide who will get your labor when you open a business to the public. You don't get to write your own rules because you open a business. If all that were required to practice discrimination is get a business license, we would still have white only lunch counters. Sorry...but America rejected that bigotry decades ago. Time to move into the 21st century.
 
Back
Top Bottom