• 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 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.*

In most cases you are likely correct, but not in all.
 
Tolerance means people of opposed convictions all have to be a little bit disappointed.

At least by your inability to respond meaningfully you recognize the true nature of the problem, and the religious right's agenda.
 
Fidelity to their consciences will cost them money.

I guess it was tough on all the people that believed blacks were 'less' too, and not equal. And there was plenty of religious support, even scripture "interpretations," that enabled it.

And you know what? I dont give crap about their 'consciences.' Wrong is wrong.

The Bible was written by men...in some cases, apparently homophobic ones.
 
Frankly, I don't understand your question. Until not so long ago adultery, fornication, etc. were crimes, sometimes punishable by death.

And yet, such people were allowed to marry. And going back to the Western world and say, the 1700's, nah, they'd pretty much even stopped the stoning.

As a matter of fact, lol, they were often *forced* to marry.
 
There's no difficulty with the signage...it serves both bigot and bigotee. It also protects both, even tho only one might desire it (those being informed before they have to deal with the bigots).

Still confusing for you, I know but basically it means that the govt involvement protects both's rights, one side that would desire it and one side that may or may not. And I agree with the govt protecting people's rights.

No confusion at all, in fact I see right through you...
Oh, and of course, the ever present mentality that if you are not in accordance with your beliefs, then you are a bigot. You have bigot on the mind, and that is all you see. And yep, it is funny and ironic that you are confused and biased, and always see bigots where none exist, even with your eyes closed, even when it is out of the sphere of the discussion. Bigot, bigot, bigot. That's your only answer to everything. But, you are not close minded or anything.
 
Tolerance means people of opposed convictions all have to be a little bit disappointed.

"A little bit disappointed" is grossly minimizing the experience of having someone say to one's face, "We don't __________________ for homosexuals (or transsexuals)." That causes way more than a little bit of disappointment. If it's related to a wedding, at the least, they've cast a pall on the planning and maybe the event. They've also planted seeds of doubt or fear about what the next stop will bring. That's a really cruddy thing to have to put up with over something LGBTs cannot change.
 
"A little bit disappointed" is grossly minimizing the experience of having someone say to one's face, "We don't __________________ for homosexuals (or transsexuals)." That causes way more than a little bit of disappointment. If it's related to a wedding, at the least, they've cast a pall on the planning and maybe the event. They've also planted seeds of doubt or fear about what the next stop will bring. That's a really cruddy thing to have to put up with over something LGBTs cannot change.

...when weighing respective rights, I'm sorry, but I just can't get in my head how the right not to have to call the next wedding planner on the google search page outweighs the right to conscience or religion.
 
No confusion at all, in fact I see right through you...
Oh, and of course, the ever present mentality that if you are not in accordance with your beliefs, then you are a bigot. You have bigot on the mind, and that is all you see. And yep, it is funny and ironic that you are confused and biased, and always see bigots where none exist, even with your eyes closed, even when it is out of the sphere of the discussion. Bigot, bigot, bigot. That's your only answer to everything. But, you are not close minded or anything.

Meaningless post where you didnt say anything....well, I knew you'd be confused...thanks for confirming it.

You couldnt refute it with actual discussion....:) (Amusing, your removing the bold below, lol...too confusing eh? Well, hypocrisy often is)

There's no difficulty with the signage...it serves both bigot and bigotee. It also protects both, even tho only one might desire it (those being informed before they have to deal with the bigots). The govt is actively protecting their right to association there, even if the business owners prefer to 'protect' their own right to association by associating with (personally informing) those it desires not to associate with. (yup, still funny).

Still confusing for you, I know but basically it means that the govt involvement protects both's rights, one side that would desire it and one side that may or may not. And I agree with the govt protecting people's rights.
 
Last edited:
Penn Jillette hits it out of the park. Watch the crazy zealot lady wince..comedy gold.

 
...when weighing respective rights, I'm sorry, but I just can't get in my head how the right not to have to call the next wedding planner on the google search page outweighs the right to conscience or religion.

That you don't see that informing a person they are unfit to do business with because of a characteristic which they have no part in deciding (which does no harm the shopkeeper) is unkind/rude/cruel, is something I cannot wrap my head around. In person or on the phone.
 
...when weighing respective rights, I'm sorry, but I just can't get in my head how the right not to have to call the next wedding planner on the google search page outweighs the right to conscience or religion.

Perhaps you need a new head. This is a done deal, business's cannot discriminate. baking a cake is not a religious exercise.
 
Perhaps you need a new head. This is a done deal, business's cannot discriminate. baking a cake is not a religious exercise.

No, but a wedding ceremony is. And it doesn't have to be a religious ceremony to violate your faith.
 
That you don't see that informing a person they are unfit to do business with because of a characteristic which they have no part in deciding (which does no harm the shopkeeper) is unkind/rude/cruel, is something I cannot wrap my head around. In person or on the phone.

:shrug: I can see how people would find it rude or cruel, particularly if you were rude or cruel in the delivery. But there are plenty of ways to handle that conversation without being rude or cruel.

Nor is anyone saying "You are unfit to do business with". They are saying "we cannot in good faith take participate in your wedding ceremony."
 

Indeed.

dissent-is-hate.gif
 
:shrug: I can see how people would find it rude or cruel, particularly if you were rude or cruel in the delivery. But there are plenty of ways to handle that conversation without being rude or cruel.

Nor is anyone saying "You are unfit to do business with". They are saying "we cannot in good faith take participate in your wedding ceremony."

You cannot pretty up the truth with that language. Good faith in this instance means the LGBT person they are denying service to is a sinner who will burn in hell for being the way they are and they won't have anything to do with them.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Enough of the trolling pictures.
 
That you don't see that informing a person they are unfit to do business with because of a characteristic which they have no part in deciding (which does no harm the shopkeeper) is unkind/rude/cruel, is something I cannot wrap my head around. In person or on the phone.

The only thing that people choose in this mess is their religious dogma, and boy, that sure does mess people up when they choose the one that wants to hate and discriminate.
 
You cannot pretty up the truth with that language.

You can certainly avoid being cruel or rude to people while refusing to take part in ceremonies that violate your faith.

Good faith in this instance means the LGBT person they are denying service to is a sinner who will burn in hell for being the way they are and they won't have anything to do with them.

:shrug: It's not given to me to decide who's going to Hell or Heaven - and thank God it isn't. Furthermore, it is a central Christian teaching that we are all sinners in desperate need of a Savior, we all deserve Hell. If an LGBT person is a wicked sinner, well, yeah? That just makes them like everyone else?

You are impugning opposition to your values to people who oppose your means. Taking my position no more requires seeking to be cruel to gays (the opposite of your motivation) thank taking your position requires hatred of Christianity (the opposite of my motivation). I don't think you hate Christians, nor do I think it is a goal of yours to trample on people's rights. It would be nice if you could extend to me that same basic presumption that no one here is deliberately trying to do evil to another to me and others.

Good Faith in this instance simply means obedience to the New Testament. It is a restriction on me, not them. Nor does it mean by any stretch of the imagination that "it means you wont' have anything to do with them". On the contrary - my faith and my God demand that I love them, as best as I am able.
 
The only thing that people choose in this mess is their religious dogma, and boy,
that sure does mess people up when they choose the one that wants to hate and discriminate.

It still boils down to the GOP civil war between the Elites versus the TEAts.
The TEAts had a bone thrown their way due to gay marriage and it backfired.
The GOP Elites like WAL-MART and TYSON changed the mind of the governor of Arkansas, not his son.

All Congressmen and Senators are at home right now except the ones in Israel trying to undercut the Nuke talks--yet they are 'Silence is Golden'.
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush has become the first to etch-a-sketch on his support for Pence---Romney 2.0 .
 
You can certainly avoid being cruel or rude to people while refusing to take part in ceremonies that violate your faith.



:shrug: It's not given to me to decide who's going to Hell or Heaven - and thank God it isn't. Furthermore, it is a central Christian teaching that we are all sinners in desperate need of a Savior, we all deserve Hell. If an LGBT person is a wicked sinner, well, yeah? That just makes them like everyone else?

You are impugning opposition to your values to people who oppose your means. Taking my position no more requires seeking to be cruel to gays (the opposite of your motivation) thank taking your position requires hatred of Christianity (the opposite of my motivation). I don't think you hate Christians, nor do I think it is a goal of yours to trample on people's rights. It would be nice if you could extend to me that same basic presumption that no one here is deliberately trying to do evil to another to me and others.

Good Faith in this instance simply means obedience to the New Testament. It is a restriction on me, not them. Nor does it mean by any stretch of the imagination that "it means you wont' have anything to do with them". On the contrary - my faith and my God demand that I love them, as best as I am able.

As I said:
You cannot pretty up the truth with that language. Good faith in this instance means the LGBT person they are denying service to is a sinner who will burn in hell for being the way they are and they won't have anything to do with them.

That statement was made in general, not against you. There is plenty of evidence on this board alone, that Christians who reject LGBT persons are doing so because they are sinners and then they add the part about hellfire. It's the kind of thing that LGBT individuals are likely to have heard. The Phelps are pretty widely distributing that sentiment as well. So when someone who is LGBT hears, even in the most polite language (if they are lucky) "We cannot in good faith provide you with service", that is what is behind it and what is communicated.

Nobody enjoys being rejected, for any reason, but being rejected because of who you are, is hurtful and unkind. Nothing stops me from being kind to people patronizing my services, short of someone being a jerk to me and I have trouble being unkind then.
 
1.)Freedom of conscience is a human right
2.) and freedom of religion is protected under our Constitution.

1.) no its not and you dramatically over rank conscience . . its basically meaningless when it comes to rights and laws
2.) as rights, laws and many many court cases prove freedom of religion is not impacted by equal rights or anti-discrimination laws, it fact it protects them

so both your arguments fail in the sense of legality and rights
 
Again, tolerance means everyone is a little bit disappointed.

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

thats not what tolerance means at all lol
but it explains the illogical basis for the claims you have made
 
You know what is the most obvious part about the bakery that makes it pure bigotry and ignorant vile disrespect . . . . .

its the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the whole thing

Im a christian and now where ever in my life has it been taught to me, mentioned in any of my churches etc etc that selling food to "deh gays" is a sin or violation of some sort . . .

but for the sake of argument lets say a person believes it is (even though that belief is meaningless to rights and laws) how many wedding cakes were made for people:
of OTHER religions?
a wedding with NO religion?
a 2nd, 3rd, 4th wedding after divorce?
or food for OTHER religious events?
etc etc
but not "deh Gays"!!!!

Now i do freely admit i am GUESSING with the bakery that these services were provide, though loigically we all would guess its a sure thing. But in other cases those exact things did happen. there have been venues etc that denied deh gays based on religions claims but then allowed other religions access to the venue or service to do thier own sacred events . . . what obvious transparent crap. SO hard not to laugh at it when its so blatantly dishonest in a lot of cases. Its like when a little kid tells on themselves and doesnt even realize it . . . .

also the asinine claim of the bakery "served" gays but it wouldnt make them a wedding cake so thats not bigotry or discrimination? what? LMAO

so when restaurants didnt let blacks in the front door and made them get thier food in the back or in the alley that wasnt discrimination or bigotry? you know cause they did serve them just not in the front. You know cause thier conscience just couldn't handle that.

if i own a company and I hire women but they can only be cleaning ladies and secretaries thats not bigotry and discrimination? you know, cause i do hire them I just dont promote them and they cant be a boss even if qualified, my conscience just cant handle that

Sorry but honest, educated and objective people will NEVER buy outrageous, mentally retarded, dishonest 100% grade A bull**** like that lol its like some of them arent even really trying anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom