• 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

Discrimination occurs every day. That point was very clear. Let me know if you struggle with big words.

Yes, it does. This morning I discriminated against toast by making waffles instead.

Is there something that makes you think this is relevant to public accommodation laws?
 
Oh look, another one who thinks the world is black and white.

Public accommodation laws protect race, gender, religion, and in many states sexuality. That's it. Are you discriminating on the basis of one of those characteristics? if so, you're in trouble. Any other characteristic? Go for it. You can kick someone out of your business for having red hair. That's legal. Enjoy.

Women's gyms tend to fall under exemptions based on privacy, wherein the gym is treated like a locker room or bathroom. Although I assume this varies by state.
Oh know...I quite understand the laws. I get that they change fairly regularly. The point was made very clearly. The law very clearly allows for discrimination...it occurs every day. Maybe someday soon EVERYONE will have their own special protected class.
 
Yes, it does. This morning I discriminated against toast by making waffles instead.

Is there something that makes you think this is relevant to public accommodation laws?
Did you discriminate against allowing the 33 year old man into your retirement community? Did you discriminate against allowing a man into your womens gym? Surely you created a handicap bathroom to accommodate for handicapped patrons...then the law MUST insist you create a mens bathroom for your male customers...right?

Discrimination occurs every day.
 
Oh know...I quite understand the laws. I get that they change fairly regularly. The point was made very clearly. The law very clearly allows for discrimination...it occurs every day. Maybe someday soon EVERYONE will have their own special protected class.

You apparently don't understand the laws because you seem under the impression that only certain people are protected.

You are protected by public accommodation laws, dude.

Did you discriminate against allowing the 33 year old man into your retirement community? Did you discriminate against allowing a man into your womens gym? Surely you created a handicap bathroom to accommodate for handicapped patrons...then the law MUST insist you create a mens bathroom for your male customers...right?

Discrimination occurs every day.

So either all discrimination must be legal or no discrimination can be legal. Those are the only two options?

It's either that, or you're attacking an absurd straw man here. Are you really under the impression people are arguing that all discrimination must be stopped?
 
Discrimination occurs every day. That point was very clear. Let me know if you struggle with big words.

You made an analogy with zero applicability to the topic. I'm sure it sounded clever inside your head, but it was pretty stupid. Feel free to prove otherwise.
 
You apparently don't understand the laws because you seem under the impression that only certain people are protected.

You are protected by public accommodation laws, dude.



So either all discrimination must be legal or no discrimination can be legal. Those are the only two options?
Only certain people ARE protected. There are 'protected classes' of citizens. As to the all or nothing thinking...that seems rather a stupid statement coming from you considering your position on people choosing to not make a cake for a gay wedding.
 
You made an analogy with zero applicability to the topic. I'm sure it sounded clever inside your head, but it was pretty stupid. Feel free to prove otherwise.
Its already proven. Discrimination exists...often with legal coverage.

For example...in Indiana, a baker can choose to not bake a cake for a gay wedding, depending on circumstances.
 
I read "Dang, they got us, now we have to scramble to save face."


".... our nation's leaders are a feeble crew ..... "

Once again, a Con steps out into the public and shoots himself in the foot with a bazooka. It's the gang that can't shoot straight; but then again, how hard is it to miss a foot?
 
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?

Is there something in the Bible that says "Thou shall not bake fabulous cupcakes for homosexuals?" I don't see how icing rainbows on a freakin' cupcake will make one gay, accepting of gays, or, in the very least, go against their religion. It's just business.

And, BTW, if I'm not mistaken, aren't there Christian religions who are accepting of homosexuality?
 
Is there something in the Bible that says "Thou shall not bake fabulous cupcakes for homosexuals?" I don't see how icing rainbows on a freakin' cupcake will make one gay, accepting of gays, or, in the very least, go against their religion. It's just business.

And, BTW, if I'm not mistaken, aren't there Christian religions who are accepting of homosexuality?

I'm not talking about a customer purchasing the general merchandise. If they chose to simply not serve homosexuals that would be a completely different matter (and I have no idea how they would make that determination at a glance). At issue is whether they should have to provide a special service or product that is contrary to their legitimate religious beliefs.
 
I'm not talking about a customer purchasing the general merchandise. If they chose to simply not serve homosexuals that would be a completely different matter (and I have no idea how they would make that determination at a glance). At issue is whether they should have to provide a special service or product that is contrary to their legitimate religious beliefs.

Ah, I think in many cases, it's easy to determine sexual preference. And you're going to have to cite me an example because I cannot think of how they would feel infringed?
 
Actually Indiana's law does. This is how it is different than other states.

No it wouldn't. The additional language applies to civil lawsuits, and the rest is nearly identical to other states.
 
Why wouldnt posting it be required? Otherwise how would people know that they cannot do business there?

Businesses do it all the time now anyway. (Shoes, shirts, skateboards, smoking, guns, etc) Why? So they dont have to waste time and effort dealing with people or issues they dont want to.

If you want that freedom to not associate, then the sign allows you to do exactly that. Signs allow one to avoid 'association.'

They could put up signs if they want, but after a while everyone would know who they serve and who they don't. The point is, that businesses that do that and survive would likely be few and far between, as it is now, without any government intervention. Completely unnecessary. The solution is not always to surrender more freedoms to the government, it rarely ends up as a good thing.
 
You made an analogy with zero applicability to the topic. I'm sure it sounded clever inside your head, but it was pretty stupid. Feel free to prove otherwise.

If I understand him correctly, he made an analogy with 100 percent applicability to the topical point he was making. The frequent claim that some choices are immoral because 'it's discrimination' is not especially useful. Making any choice in life always involves discriminating. And any interaction with another human being necessarily involves choice. That you and I decide to participate in this thread, and not some other, is a choice...discriminating between who we wish to engage and on what subjects.

But in a free society, persons (absent third party impositions) decide how they will interact...each member as "self-owners" having the right to their own holdings, but not other's holdings, unless acquired through voluntary means.

So, right or wrong, anti-discrimination laws are an imposition of involuntary choices by a third party, telling buyers and sellers who must buy or sell to, and under what criteria. They don't ban discrimination, they redistribute the rights to discriminate and make choices for buyer and seller - they impose involuntary transactions. Buyer and seller are not "equally protected" in their liberty because the whole point of such laws is to restrict the liberty of free choice on behalf of one party over another.

Finally, so-called 'protected groups' (beneficiaries of restricted liberty) are arbitrarily defined. In public accommodation 0eople are not protected on the basis of their looks, dress, hygiene, skill sets, accent, union affiliation, class, drug use, hobbies, interests, or health (including mental health). And in most states they are not protected on the basis of political beliefs or sexual orientation, credit history, or sexual habits.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination per se', so what justifies anti-discrimination laws that restrict free choice? Of what business is it of the state who I buy or sell to? If I don't like vets (who promote war) or the KKK 'christians', of what business of yours if I choose not to sell to them?
 
Last edited:
Is there something in the Bible that says "Thou shall not bake fabulous cupcakes for homosexuals?" I don't see how icing rainbows on a freakin' cupcake will make one gay, accepting of gays, or, in the very least, go against their religion. It's just business.

And, BTW, if I'm not mistaken, aren't there Christian religions who are accepting of homosexuality?

And is there something in liberal ideology that says a quaker can consciously object to laws requiring participation in a war, but cannot object to what kind of cupcakes he/she provides gays?
 
Last edited:
No it wouldn't. The additional language applies to civil lawsuits, and the rest is nearly identical to other states.


Bingo....and that is how it was different and the cause behind the outrage. Pence and the bigots were hoping to expand their version and were caught in their lies. Oops....now they are doing damage control.
 
Only certain people ARE protected. There are 'protected classes' of citizens. As to the all or nothing thinking...that seems rather a stupid statement coming from you considering your position on people choosing to not make a cake for a gay wedding.

I see. You think only certain people are protected.

Tell me, VanceMack, do you have a gender, a race, a religion, or a sexuality?

Yes. Of course you do. Guess what? You're protected too! Congratulations!

See, blacks aren't a protected class. Race is protected. A business cannot kick you out for being white. Or latino. Or black.

Women aren't a protected class. Gender is protected. A business cannot kick you out for being a man.

Homosexuals aren't a protected class. Sexuality is (in many states) protected. A business cannot kick you out for being straight.

Do you understand now? I think a lot of people end up with the impression you have, because nobody really tries to ban straight white men from their business. Harder to run a successful business when you discriminate against a majority.
 
Last edited:
It was the customers choice to engage the baker and their intent to cause discord so I would TOTALLY disagree with that assessment.

so im curious how does that fit the SUBJECTIVE definition of discrimination
 
Doesn't mean the states argument was convincing. :shrug:

The argument that someone must serve others is just not terribly convincing, sorry.

Well, it's not convincing to you. Which, in the grand scheme of things, means nothing.
 
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's obvious that if the court becomes involved and forces compliance with the wishes of the gay activist, the business owners are victims of institutional discrimination against their religious views. With out court involvement there is no discrimination, just a request and denial.
 
Ah, I think in many cases, it's easy to determine sexual preference.

:doh

"In ma day, you could tell on which side a man's bread was buttered."
 
They could put up signs if they want, but after a while everyone would know who they serve and who they don't. The point is, that businesses that do that and survive would likely be few and far between, as it is now, without any government intervention. Completely unnecessary. The solution is not always to surrender more freedoms to the government, it rarely ends up as a good thing.

So then in order to exercise their freedom of association, they would choose to associate with <insert group> in order to tell them they wouldnt associate with them?

LOLOL Ah the irony.
 
So then in order to exercise their freedom of association, they would choose to associate with <insert group> in order to tell them they wouldnt associate with them?

LOLOL Ah the irony.

They could associate all they want. Who cares? What are you even talking about? You have successfully made absolutely no case for the government to get involved. As usually, off on an irrelevant tangent. Yep, LOL is right.
 
Second, Indiana's labor force is located primarily in medium-sized and smaller cities rather than in very large and expensive metropolises. This makes it possible for firms to offer somewhat lower wages for these skills than would normally be paid. Firms often see in Indiana a chance to obtain higher than average skills at lower than average wages

Indiana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

great come to Indiana we'll pay you less:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom