• 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

No worries. I've been under the weather, so if I don't get back to this today, I'm hoping I can tomorrow. I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring you


Or you Jack Hays. (Started Thursday night.)

I am atwitter with anticipation.:mrgreen:
 
Nah man, there is a huge diff between a business discriminating and the state going out of its way to override decades-long city anti discrimination laws, targeting a single group in favor of a single religion in the process.

That is what these "RFRA" are all about

I was referring to the poster, chrom, not the issue itself.

X i think it's worth pointing out that, despite all the attention the bakery got, very few accusations of discrimination boil down to refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

So i don't see why his response is such a big deal. I mean he may be wrong but really...

The vast majority of discrimination is in employment, housing, and small business service that does NOT cater weddings. None of that is disallowed under indiana law. That is the issue here

Hmmmm, being discriminated against in jobs and housing seems like something that's a lot more important than someone not wanting to bake a cake. So why are we spending so much time talking about wedding cakes and photographers? One thing I believe absolutely to be true is that it's nobody else's business what anyone else (straight or gay) does. It's what makes me believe that nobody else has a right to dictate another person's actions. The problem is, though, when you (meant in the general sense) start demanding that others accept something or do something against their beliefs and will, you sacrifice being able to make the argument that others should do their own thing and leave you alone to do yours because now they can be all, "See? It does potentially impact my life." Now you'd be hard pressed to tell them, "it's none of your business".

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not sure I'm being as clear as I'd like.
 
Hmmmm, being discriminated against in jobs and housing seems like something that's a lot more important than someone not wanting to bake a cake. So why are we spending so much time talking about wedding cakes and photographers? One thing I believe absolutely to be true is that it's nobody else's business what anyone else (straight or gay) does. It's what makes me believe that nobody else has a right to dictate another person's actions. The problem is, though, when you (meant in the general sense) start demanding that others accept something or do something against their beliefs and will, you sacrifice being able to make the argument that others should do their own thing and leave you alone to do yours because now they can be all, "See? It does potentially impact my life." Now you'd be hard pressed to tell them, "it's none of your business".

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not sure I'm being as clear as I'd like.

Why? I guess the same reason CNN talked for months about the missing plane, or michael jackson's death etc. It's just headline grabbing. There is an employment protection bill in the US house (it passed the senate if you can believe it) that is stalled because repubs want to add religious exemption. Well guess what, that would defeat the whole purpose.

Some of these conflicts are unavoidable. You just gotta decide, should someone lose their job cause their boss has a religious objection to their sexuality? This fear led my gay uncle to marry and live a lie for sake of his boss' prejudice, then divorce and take another job across the country once he was able. Who the hell wins in that scenario?

Ultimately what i harken back to when i hear "nobody has a right to dictate another's actions" is jim crow south. You know, desegregation meant forcing colleges, restaurants, bus drivers to do things against their will. Now you might say race, well, that's an identity not a behavior. This "rfra" makes no distinction between gay couples getting married and the teenager who is gay, never been in a relationship, and already has it bad enough cause he lives in ****ty indiana. All are targets

Personally though, i would not want to do business for something like a wedding cake with someone like that, nor would i trust them to do it right. Strategically, the fallout has been more trouble than it's worth.

I wish it never happened, so people stop using the bakery as a strawman and focus on the real problems like the hateful intent behind this indiana "rfra", the doctor who wouldn't treat the infant of the gay couple (depriving necessities), employment and housing discrimination. None of that is in the bible to my knowledge, so i see it as they're lying when they hide their bigotry behind their 'faith,' and i would think that would upset a lot of Christians like yourself who are gay friendly

How am i asking someone to 'endorse'/'enable'/participate in my sexuality or my sex life when i go to buy milk? Or as the poster above said, i got in a car crash and the hospital won't treat me cause i'm gay? What does one have to do with the other?
 
Last edited:
Hate devours the hater.

Hate? No, I dont allow much of that to poison my mind or body.

And you have gone to attempting insult because you could offer zero to support either of the things you quoted.

Gloating is a sin...I'm trying to avoid it but I'm not always successful :)
 
You can deny all you want, but the evidence is clear.

You were asked for it and and didnt produce it. You tossed out a couple of less-than-relevant convenient options that didnt address the question I had for your claim...which you again continue to bob and weave as you hope your original false claim is forgotten.
 
Hate? No, I dont allow much of that to poison my mind or body.

And you have gone to attempting insult because you could offer zero to support either of the things you quoted.

Gloating is a sin...I'm trying to avoid it but I'm not always successful :)

Should be easy since you have nothing to gloat about after having lost the debate.
 
You were asked for it and and didnt produce it. You tossed out a couple of less-than-relevant convenient options that didnt address the question I had for your claim...which you again continue to bob and weave as you hope your original false claim is forgotten.

No. My examples were center mass hits that destroyed your position. You are in denial.
 
I guess, if you turn it around and think socialist ie the state grants permission to do business you would legitimately be able to argue that way. On the other hand, it is not the business that wants to withhold trade. It is the owner against his financial interests that for conscientious reasons thinks he may not for a reason he considers above the law. In this point he does have the Constitution on his side, as the Constitution has usually up to recently been interpreted. But, I suspect to see this go to a ruling by the Supreme Court. And then we will know, if the Constitution has changed.

The constitution was written when women and blacks were still being discriminated. While an outstanding document, it has its limitations.
 
Should be easy since you have nothing to gloat about after having lost the debate.

No, you could not support your claim that religions have campaigned against marriage for adulterers, fornicators, and other sinners.

Nor could you explain what makes Christian groups/spokespersons 'noteworthy,' as unfortunately the Westboro Church abominations are also 'noteworthy' yet do nothing but harm the credibility of Christianity.

So...remind me again...how did I 'lose' anything? I supported all my statements....and you resorted to avoidance. I reminded you...reposted the quotes...several times. And yet...nada from you...just avoidance.

Yeah, you might want to look up the definition of 'losing.'
 
No. My examples were center mass hits that destroyed your position. You are in denial.

LOL, sorry, they were fails and I explained why immediately after you posted them.
 
The constitution was written when women and blacks were still being discriminated. While an outstanding document, it has its limitations.

I do not really see the problem in the Constitution, but in its general application. Applying the law is never easy and this is what we are seeing here. There is no question about whether or not the state must treat gays impartially. What that means might be discussed. To what extent this applies to third parties is not as clear, especially where would require intrusion into and restriction of the Constitutional rights of citizens by the state.
 
The compromise reportedly agreed to by both sides today is along the lines I suggested. As best I can make out this early, a restaurant asked to provide food for a gay wedding probably cannot refuse, but a caterer cannot be compelled to provide servers and other support personnel who would actually participate.

Could you elaborate on the comment in bold?
 
Ok, I'm back. Could you elaborate why you disagree and how that quoted text supports your disagreement?

There was a specific reason why I made that comment about the fix.
I was also claimed it mirrored the fed RFRA, which it did not.
From what I have gleaned groups such as below had substantial input on writing for the original bill.

“VICTORY AT THE STATEHOUSE!” proclaimed a news release from Advance America, a conservative group whose leader, Eric Miller, was invited to join Pence at a private signing ceremony at the statehouse. “Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!”

Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

Many in Indiana also see the legislation as a reaction to last year's unsuccessful push to enshrine a same-sex marriage ban in the state's constitution.

Three of the lobbyists who pushed hardest for last year's gay marriage ban — Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana, Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute and Eric Miller of Advance America — were among the 70 to 80 guests invited to the private bill signing.

"It is vitally important to protect religious freedom in Indiana," Miller said in a statement after the bill signing. "It was therefore important to pass Senate Bill 101 in 2015 in order to help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!"


Then there is this
Here’s how to use religious freedom laws to fend off a gay discrimination suit - The Washington Post
A RFRA empowers a religious objector. Now, the gay wedding vendor has a stronger case because the RFRA explicitly demands that judges apply strict scrutiny. First, she has to demonstrate that serving a gay wedding would “substantially burden” her religious beliefs, and that her beliefs are sincere. “Substantial burden” sounds intimidating, but in practice, it is not a high bar.

Then the court would have to consider if the gay discrimination law serves a “compelling interest” and if it is the “least restrictive means” to accomplish that purpose. In other words, the court has decide if it is vitally important to society that a religious person must obey this law in violation of her beliefs.
 
No, you could not support your claim that religions have campaigned against marriage for adulterers, fornicators, and other sinners.

Nor could you explain what makes Christian groups/spokespersons 'noteworthy,' as unfortunately the Westboro Church abominations are also 'noteworthy' yet do nothing but harm the credibility of Christianity.

So...remind me again...how did I 'lose' anything? I supported all my statements....and you resorted to avoidance. I reminded you...reposted the quotes...several times. And yet...nada from you...just avoidance.

Yeah, you might want to look up the definition of 'losing.'

Your claims have all been refuted. I'm not sure what you're still talking about. The Catholic Church still does not allow divorced people to remarry in the Church, for example. The additional marriage is considered adultery.
 
Your claims have all been refuted. I'm not sure what you're still talking about. The Catholic Church still does not allow divorced people to remarry in the Church, for example. The additional marriage is considered adultery.

That's how wrong you are. I acknowleged that in my responses, each time. I said they were an exception.
 
Could you elaborate on the comment in bold?

Looks like there will need to be court cases to draw the line.

From the Indianapolis Star coverage:

". . . The compromise legislation specifies that the new religious freedom law cannot be used as a legal defense to discriminate against patrons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The proposal goes much further than a "preamble" that was proposed earlier in the week, and, if it stands, would be the first time any protections against discrimination have been extended to gays and lesbians in state law. But it doesn't go as far as establishing gays and lesbians as a protected class of citizens statewide or repealing the law outright, both things Republican leaders have said they could not support.

INDIANAPOLIS STAR





Specifically, the new language says the RFRA does not authorize a provider — including businesses or individuals — to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, goods, employment, housing or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex or military service.
The proposed language exempts churches or other nonprofit religious organizations — including affiliated schools — from the definition of "provider."
 
That's how wrong you are. I acknowleged that in my responses, each time. I said they were an exception.

Most fundamentalist Christian denominations won't marry divorced people either.
 
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Could you flesh out your thoughts in your own words?

The law would or could provide discrimination based upon a vendors religious beliefs.
 
Most fundamentalist Christian denominations won't marry divorced people either.

And yet, we were discussing 'campaigns' against such. Not just 'rules'. You were going to document such publicly organized campaigns where religious organizations and/or churches funded and carried out efforts to make such marriages for other sinners (like adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, murderers, etc) illegal. So, still waiting.

(As I said, the Catholic Church doesnt approve or perform them. That is different from trying to convince governments and the public that they should be illegal....You implied I was uninformed and that they did indeed exist. Please 'inform' me.)
 
And yet, we were discussing 'campaigns' against such. Not just 'rules'. You were going to document such publicly organized campaigns where religious organizations and/or churches funded and carried out efforts to make such marriages for other sinners (like adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, murderers, etc) illegal. So, still waiting.

(As I said, the Catholic Church doesnt approve or perform them. That is different from trying to convince governments and the public that they should be illegal....You implied I was uninformed and that they did indeed exist. Please 'inform' me.)

Your use of the word "campaign" is inappropriate. Churches have doctrine and that has been plain for centuries.
 
Looks like there will need to be court cases to draw the line.

From the Indianapolis Star coverage:

". . . The compromise legislation specifies that the new religious freedom law cannot be used as a legal defense to discriminate against patrons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The proposal goes much further than a "preamble" that was proposed earlier in the week, and, if it stands, would be the first time any protections against discrimination have been extended to gays and lesbians in state law. But it doesn't go as far as establishing gays and lesbians as a protected class of citizens statewide or repealing the law outright, both things Republican leaders have said they could not support.

INDIANAPOLIS STAR





Specifically, the new language says the RFRA does not authorize a provider — including businesses or individuals — to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, goods, employment, housing or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex or military service.
The proposed language exempts churches or other nonprofit religious organizations — including affiliated schools — from the definition of "provider."


What line do you see that needs to be drawn?
Specifically, the new language says the RFRA does not authorize a provider — including businesses or individuals — to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, goods, employment, housing or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity,

Seems pretty clear.
 
The law would or could provide discrimination based upon a vendors religious beliefs.

Discrimination? How so?
 
Back
Top Bottom