• 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

I don't exactly see anybody trying to make their marriages illegal nor barring their access to places of public accommodation.

SSM is secure, and the extraordinarily rapid cultural evolution to achieve that is experienced by religious conservatives as an assault on their consciences.
 
It does in an orderly civilized society, where they wish to practice their faith. I remind you that there are ways for them to both conduct business and keep their faith without practicing random discrimination.


In almost all case I think you are right. But not in absolutely all.
 
The movement from illegal homosexuality to gay marriage has been accomplished in 10% of the time it took to get from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Civil Rights Act. Your comparison fails.

Well, some of us might expect more from people these days than we could have expected in 1865. Then again, if you're looking for excuses for bigotry, I suppose that one works as well as any other.
 
:lamo Jeb is changing his position on the Indiana law . :peace


The movement from illegal homosexuality to gay marriage has been accomplished in 10% of the time it took to get from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Civil Rights Act. Your comparison fails.
 
Let's hope your first sentence is true.

As for the rest, one shouldn't have to pass a religious test in order to do business.

Again, tolerance means everyone is a little bit disappointed.
 
Well, some of us might expect more from people these days than we could have expected in 1865. Then again, if you're looking for excuses for bigotry, I suppose that one works as well as any other.

The bigotry is on both sides of this question. Tolerance means everyone has to be a little bit disappointed.
 
Again, tolerance means everyone is a little bit disappointed.

LGBT customers will be disappointed while the "Christian" business owners will be anything but.
 
That's better than saying it's all on the left.
Apparently you've shifted to the center just as Jeb Bush has tonight . :peace

The bigotry is on both sides of this question. Tolerance means everyone has to be a little bit disappointed.
 
That's better than saying it's all on the left.
Apparently you've shifted to the center just as Jeb Bush has tonight . :peace

Please see my link at #257. That has been my view throughout.
 
Please see the link in #257. It is anything but cavalier.

Okay, blatant trolling on your part, myopic stupidity on Kathleen Parker's part.
 
Sorry, but I can't discern a point to answer.

It was my response to your opinion that the delays and discomfort of 'adjustment' are reasonable.

The movement from laws against homosexuality to gay marriage has been accomplished in about 10% of the time it took to move from Appomattox to the Civil Rights Act, so no, I don't think think acceptance of some messiness at this moment is unreasonable. Especially since the number of people directly affected negatively would be minuscule.


If it's 'wrong,' it's wrong. If gays deserve equal rights, then they do....period.

And each individual deserves that respect and equality....IMO that may be part of the problem....not seeing gays as individuals....just seeing their 'sexual habits.' Yet, minority or not...the Const. specifically protects minorities from the majority.

We now are on a tangent from bakeries and wedding photographers tho....because SSM does not infringe on anyone's religious freedom, while there are indeed 2 sides to 'serving' the sinners.

Obviously, I dont feel that it is (reasonable).

I am part of a generation that people will look back on much as they did those that accepted slavery.....ignorant at best, malicious at worst. I hope that this is overcome so that history will look back and see change for the better, and not ignorance. I do not wish to be included in the former judgements.

And so, no, I dont feel it's reasonable. You dont agree, I understand. No response needed if you have none.
 
What is it about the institution of marriage that you want to know?

So you cannot support your claim that the challenges to the other things allowed in marriage that I mentioned (adultery, fornication, other sinners, non-believers) all happened in the past? Fine, just say so.

I can repost AGAIN where you made the claim, including my post that included my initial statements, but it's looking like that would be an exercise in futility....since you evade again.
 
We'll have to disagree. I think she has it just right.

Presuming she's not trolling, then she's demonstrating an astonishing degree of myopia. The problem isn't about religious freedom (except insofar as religious freedom is cited as a pretext for behaving like complete assholes towards other people), but about creating a de facto second class. By barring the minority from patronizing as many businesses as the majority has access to(which includes schools and financial institutions, btw, not just bakeries and wedding photographers as this stream of stories would have us believe), you are creating a disadvantaged class. Of course the majority has no problem trolling everybody as you did by saying "just go to another business," because the majority is fully aware that as a majority they can in no way be meaningfully threatened by a minority.
 
So you cannot support your claim that the challenges to the other things allowed in marriage that I mentioned (adultery, fornication, other sinners, non-believers) all happened in the past? Fine, just say so.

I can repost AGAIN where you made the claim, including my post that included my initial statements, but it's looking like that would be an exercise in futility....since you evade again.

Frankly, I don't understand your question. Until not so long ago adultery, fornication, etc. were crimes, sometimes punishable by death.
 
Presuming she's not trolling, then she's demonstrating an astonishing degree of myopia. The problem isn't about religious freedom (except insofar as religious freedom is cited as a pretext for behaving like complete assholes towards other people), but about creating a de facto second class. By barring the minority from patronizing as many businesses as the majority has access to(which includes schools and financial institutions, btw, not just bakeries and wedding photographers as this stream of stories would have us believe), you are creating a disadvantaged class. Of course the majority has no problem trolling everybody as you did by saying "just go to another business," because the majority is fully aware that as a majority they can in no way be meaningfully threatened by a minority.

Tolerance means people of opposed convictions all have to be a little bit disappointed.
 
It was my response to your opinion that the delays and discomfort of 'adjustment' are reasonable.






Obviously, I dont feel that it is (reasonable).

I am part of a generation that people will look back on much as they did those that accepted slavery.....ignorant at best, malicious at worst. I hope that this is overcome so that history will look back and see change for the better, and not ignorance. I do not wish to be included in the former judgements.

And so, no, I dont feel it's reasonable. You dont agree, I understand. No response needed if you have none.

In this matter the most rapid and positive cultural change in human history has been achieved.
 
SSM is secure, and the extraordinarily rapid cultural evolution to achieve that is experienced by religious conservatives as an assault on their consciences.

I have seen ZERO conservatives...or anyone else....explain how they have been 'assaulted' in any way by SSM. Not one could explain how it affected their marriage, their practicing their religion, or affected tenets of the institution of marriage (love, committment, raising a family, sacrifice, compromise, etc) period.

If they *choose* to be insulted or offended, that has nothing to do with religion....apparently they are not offended so terribly by adulterers remarrying...and those people *actually did harm to others.*
 
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?

Now here's the answer to this contrived scenario: the baker is discriminating.

Here is the thing about religious convictions; they don't give you the right to discriminate against other people just because those people might do something that is not approved by your religion. No one is saying that, in spite of your religious convictions, you have to become gay. What they are saying is that, if you open a store to serve the public, then you need to serve the public.

It is very telling in this whole thing that these Christians aren't advocating for the right to refuse service to anyone who has committed a sin. What they are advocating is that they have the right to refuse service to one particular group of sinners. That is what the rest of us would call discrimination, because it sure as hell isn't religious freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom