• 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!

indiana caves on "RFRA", michigan governor says he would veto any "RFRA"

Well it all turned out good in the end. No discrimination and everyone is happy.

the libertarians on this forum won't be happy that's for sure

neither is this asshole apparently:

But in an email update to supporters from the AFA's Micah Clark, he urged them to contact their state senators and to pray for legislators.

"At this very moment, the Indiana Senate is considering 'water-down' language to the recently passed and pro-religious-liberty bill, Religious Freedom Restoration Act," the email says. "Homosexual activists are demanding Christian business owners in Indiana be forced to compromise their faith."
 
the libertarians on this forum won't be happy that's for sure

neither is this asshole apparently:

But in an email update to supporters from the AFA's Micah Clark, he urged them to contact their state senators and to pray for legislators.

"At this very moment, the Indiana Senate is considering 'water-down' language to the recently passed and pro-religious-liberty bill, Religious Freedom Restoration Act," the email says. "Homosexual activists are demanding Christian business owners in Indiana be forced to compromise their faith."

the AFA, seemingly, won't be happy with anything less than a theology..... they often go way off the reservation.


edit to add... I'm a Libertarian.
 
the same exact thing it was intended to do from day 1.


give the lefties a while to process this... it'll sink in one day.

The original story featured the writers of the bill boasting that it would allow businesses to discriminate against lgbt's.
 
Looks like the backlash paid off, shanty pizza joints notwithstanding:

"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."

Indiana governor signs amended 'religious freedom' law

Surely in response, michigan governor rick snyder did a very rare thing and revealed he would veto legislation ahead of time:

"Given all the events that are happening in Indiana, I thought it would be good to clarify my position," he said. "I would veto RFRA legislation in Michigan if it is a standalone piece of legislation."

Snyder: I would veto a religious freedom bill

Fauxrage of what's not really there, and you are calling it a success?

RFRAFacts.png


https://stream.org/gay-totalitarianism-coming-persecution-christians/

LGBT bully mafia and Biased Lame Stream Media be not proud for the fauxrage and the fall out.
 
Fauxrage of what's not really there, and you are calling it a success?

RFRAFacts.png


https://stream.org/gay-totalitarianism-coming-persecution-christians/

LGBT bully mafia and Biased Lame Stream Media be not proud for the fauxrage and the fall out.

I guess because the infographic you posted is in big blue and red colors then it must be true. But let's look at this one claim that caught my attention...

The bill does nothing to encourage or discourage discrimination...never has a hotel, restaurant or major retailer used this law to deny service to an lgbt person.

Interesting choice of words, don't you think? It's almost as if the writer was forced to tailor his wording because he was easily able to google instances where businesses besides hotels, restaurants and "major" retailers totally discriminated. And of course he almost certainly did, such as...



The wording sneakily attempts to evade the fact that
a)people discriminate (we know this to be true), and
b)if people have no intention of discriminating, why then the enthusiasm over the right to do it? It makes no sense.
 
if it was intended to allow discrimination, they wouldn't have added a clarification that resulted in the exact opposite of it's intent.

from day 1, they were saying it was not a permit to discriminate... now we know they were telling the truth.
you admitting as much in inconsequential to the fact.

If they were telling the truth.....why are all the right-wingers upset about the change in the law?
 
Because I oppose anti-discrimination laws and support human rights. :shrug:


LOL......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Anti-discrimination does SUPPORT human rights. While it may be a human right to be a bigot...there is no human right to practice that bigotry against another person.
 
I guess because the infographic you posted is in big blue and red colors then it must be true. But let's look at this one claim that caught my attention...



Interesting choice of words, don't you think? It's almost as if the writer was forced to tailor his wording because he was easily able to google instances where businesses besides hotels, restaurants and "major" retailers totally discriminated. And of course he almost certainly did, such as...



The wording sneakily attempts to evade the fact that
a)people discriminate (we know this to be true), and
b)if people have no intention of discriminating, why then the enthusiasm over the right to do it? It makes no sense.


Maybe, maybe not. Would have to have some sort of statement from the writer on that, I'm thinking.

However, the point here being are all the claims and fauxrage driven, by large extent, by the Biased Lame Stream Media over the Indiana RFRA legislation being and / or promoting discrimination, when it is, nor does, either. This being demonstrated time and time again to a resounding silence of reporting by the Biased Lame Stream Media.
 
Maybe, maybe not. Would have to have some sort of statement from the writer on that, I'm thinking.

Oh, I'm pretty confident about that. If the writer had known that no business...ever...had discriminated against an lgbt on religious principle, he would have just written that. Instead he had to sneakily hone it down to "major" retailers, restaurants and hotels, probably because he couldn't find any instances of those on google.

However, the point here being are all the claims and fauxrage driven, by large extent, by the Biased Lame Stream Media over the Indiana RFRA legislation being and / or promoting discrimination, when it is, nor does, either. This being demonstrated time and time again to a resounding silence of reporting by the Biased Lame Stream Media.

And yet you have this statement by one of the legislator's pushing the original Indiana bill:

Pence tried to downplay the law's impact Thursday, but his allies who pushed it in the legislature -- led by Eric Miller, the head of Advance America and a powerful lobbyist on socially conservative issues in Indiana, who stood behind Pence at Thursday's bill signing ceremony -- touted the protections it affords businesses against gays, lesbians and transgender Hoosiers.

On his website, Miller highlighted examples of the law's effect: Christian bakers, florists and photographers won't have to participate in "homosexual marriage," he wrote, while Christian businesses won't be punished for "refusing to allow a man to use the women's restroom."

Pence signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

This was clearly a freedom people wanted and which Miller was happy to give them. And as the youtube video demonstrates there will be people who will absolutely take advantage of that freedom because they've already done it.
 
true to their nature, the religious right has once again FAILED!!

Their attempt to make discrimination against LGBT's created a backlash and now, for the first time in history, Indiana has a state law that protects LGBT's from discrimination by businesses. The american people, the people of Ind *and* even the GOP in Ind, has rejected the perverted morality and notions of "freedom" promoted by right wing bigots.
 
LOL......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Anti-discrimination does SUPPORT human rights. While it may be a human right to be a bigot...there is no human right to practice that bigotry against another person.

Really? So how exactly does anti-discrimination laws support human rights?
 
Really? So how exactly does anti-discrimination laws support human rights?

First, you'd have to imagine yourself as an unpopular minority in a country whose overwhelming majority might not like you very much. But that would require the ability to think outside of yourself, and we both know that's a futile cause.
 
First, you'd have to imagine yourself as an unpopular minority in a country whose overwhelming majority might not like you very much. But that would require the ability to think outside of yourself, and we both know that's a futile cause.

Second, I would have to imagine a world where people refusing to trade with others is a human right violation. :lamo
 
Looks like the backlash paid off, shanty pizza joints notwithstanding:

"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."

Indiana governor signs amended 'religious freedom' law

Surely in response, michigan governor rick snyder did a very rare thing and revealed he would veto legislation ahead of time:

"Given all the events that are happening in Indiana, I thought it would be good to clarify my position," he said. "I would veto RFRA legislation in Michigan if it is a standalone piece of legislation."

Snyder: I would veto a religious freedom bill
That cunning bastard gave himself wiggle room, . . . "if it is a standalone piece of legislation." So he is signaling to his legislature to embed it in something else, probably something important that "has" to be signed like a budget.
 
Second, I would have to imagine a world where people refusing to trade with others is a human right violation. :lamo

No need to get ahead of ourselves. Let's just work on the first one, then we can deal with the second.
 
No need to get ahead of ourselves. Let's just work on the first one, then we can deal with the second.

But the second is where the fun really begins. :(

So how does putting myself in the shoes of an unpopular minority change the fact that you don't have the right to someone else's trade?
 
But the second is where the fun really begins. :(

I agree, but one must first learn to walk before he can dance.

So how does putting myself in the shoes of an unpopular minority change the fact that you don't have the right to someone else's trade?

Try it and find out.
 
I agree, but one must first learn to walk before he can dance.



Try it and find out.

I imagine they might get the feeling that they are owed something from others, but they're wrong. Just because you might be having a hard time doesn't mean you're owed anything.
 
I imagine they might get the feeling that they are owed something from others, but they're wrong. Just because you might be having a hard time doesn't mean you're owed anything.

This is why I don't try with you.
 
Oh, I'm pretty confident about that. If the writer had known that no business...ever...had discriminated against an lgbt on religious principle, he would have just written that. Instead he had to sneakily hone it down to "major" retailers, restaurants and hotels, probably because he couldn't find any instances of those on google.



And yet you have this statement by one of the legislator's pushing the original Indiana bill:



Pence signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

This was clearly a freedom people wanted and which Miller was happy to give them. And as the youtube video demonstrates there will be people who will absolutely take advantage of that freedom because they've already done it.

The fundamental understanding that I have is that the legislation doesn't address discrimination against anyone, but rather reenforces the already constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, and that similar laws are already on in place in a large number of states as well as at the federal level.

How this gets twisted inside and out into support for discrimination is an oddity to me, but the fact that LGBT bully mafia want's to take other's freedoms away doesn't surprise me very much.
 
Really? So how exactly does anti-discrimination laws support human rights?

Because people in our society have the right to be walk into any establishment and be served just like anyone else. They protect civil rights.
 
Because people in our society have the right to be walk into any establishment and be served just like anyone else. They protect civil rights.

So these civil rights you speak of entitle people to be served by other people. Do you think that is how rights work?
 
So these civil rights you speak of entitle people to be served by other people. Do you think that is how rights work?

You obviously don't understand the law. If you open a business to serve people, you cannot turn someone away because you think they are "icky". That is what civil rights are about. You might want to study it sometime.
 
You obviously don't understand the law. If you open a business to serve people, you cannot turn someone away because you think they are "icky". That is what civil rights are about. You might want to study it sometime.

Yes, that is what the law says. What I'm trying to do is make you think of how the law runs counter to human rights. Maybe you could expand your thinking beyond sheepish nonsense.
 
Back
Top Bottom