• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mike Pence shows no interest in Indiana’s latest ‘religious freedom’ fight

RabidAlpaca said:
Coming from someone who thinks all taxes are theft and child support is slavery, that doesn't mean much. You are right about one thing though, it's never been about religious freedom. It's always been about making homosexuals second class citizens and denying them equal access to the public market place.
Click to expand...

Actually, as you both point out it's not just about religious freedom, but it's also not just about making non-heteros second class citizens, ... as Henrin states clearly, it's about a perceived right to make any group of citizens they don't like second class citizens. If they can get this line of attack, the right to not be "slaves" when they are open for business, to work for homosexuals I have no doubt it will soon extend to Latinos and African Americans and so on.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: no one is SJWing it up. Nobody has to. The reality is, however, that we have decided we can trample on people's religious freedoms if their exercise of it hurts someone else's feelings....


.... so long as the first person is Christian. We don't do this crap to other minorities, because that's, like, not politically correct, and stuff.
Click to expand...

There is no double standard, it's just that people aren't pursuing legal recourse against Muslim shops. It's almost like there are more Christians, or that Christians are more likely to discriminate or even more rude when they do discriminate.

From your article :

"“Any time we have a complaint from someone who thinks there’s discrimination, we will investigate no matter where the complaint comes from,” she said. “If we get a complaint, we will engage the business or we will engage the city leaders to see what we can do to rectify the situation. We don’t go looking for instances of discrimination.”

Rana Elmir, ACLU of Michigan deputy director, said in a statement that, “Businesses that are open to the public should be open to everyone on the same terms.”"

If you want to ask for a gay wedding cake and then sue a Muslim baker who refuses to make said cake, be my guest.
 
Henrin said:
I do.
Click to expand...
Lol...good luck.



I don't know anything about that. I'm just saying that religious reasons is just one of many reasons someone might have to not want to be involved in a transaction.
Click to expand...
LOL, if your religion forbids transaction, you probably ought not start a business.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: no one is SJWing it up.
Click to expand...
Lol, you are.

The reality is, however, that we have decided we can trample on people's religious freedoms if their exercise of it hurts someone else's feelings....
Click to expand...
Bull****. Go to Egypt and tell the christians there how poor and oppressed you are.


.... so long as the first person is Christian. We don't do this crap to other minorities, because that's, like, not politically correct, and stuff.
Click to expand...

Sjw sob stories.

Your religious liberties are just as they were laid out in the constitution.
 
Summerwind said:
Actually, as you both point out it's not just about religious freedom, but it's also not just about making non-heteros second class citizens, ... as Henrin states clearly, it's about a perceived right to make any group of citizens they don't like second class citizens. If they can get this line of attack, the right to not be "slaves" when they are open for business, to work for homosexuals I have no doubt it will soon extend to Latinos and African Americans and so on.
Click to expand...

Lol, "slaves", what ridiculous hyperbole. Nobody is forcing anyone to be slaves or indentured servants. It's simply that if someone wants to operate a public business opened to the public, he needs to open to the public. He can't hang a "No Blacks Allowed" sign out front, and selling things to blacks or gays that he sells to whites is not making him a slave, especially as he agreed to sell those products to the public. If you operate a business open to the public you don't get to pick your customers.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Lol...good luck.
Click to expand...

Yes, Libertarian-right poster that supports forcing people to serve others against their will, I will be sure to do that.

LOL, if your religion forbids transaction, you probably ought not start a business.
Click to expand...

If they don't want to serve certain people, but have no problem serving others that seems like enough reason for them to start a business.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Lol, "slaves", what ridiculous hyperbole. Nobody is forcing anyone to be slaves or indentured servants. It's simply that if someone wants to operate a public business opened to the public, he needs to open to the public. He can't hang a "No Blacks Allowed" sign out front, and selling things to blacks or gays that he sells to whites is not making him a slave, especially as he agreed to sell those products to the public. If you operate a business open to the public you don't get to pick your customers.
Click to expand...

Seriously, change your lean to liberal already. lol.
 
cpwill said:
You know, I've never seen anyone source this. Can you point to the actual case where they tried to make this argument?
Click to expand...

NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES | FindLaw

After he lost, he made sure the restraunt was filled with pro-slavery literature, and a the confederate flag. When his kids took over the business, they removed the racist symbols and literature, and put a more modern theme to the restaurants
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
No, this sjw crap is getting old. In Egypt Christian's rights are templed. You sound exactly like a Feminist
Click to expand...

Very white male Texan of you. However, .. your claims are about homosexuality and religion are ore in line with the feminist claims. cpwills is more in line with the response to the feminists.
 
RAMOSS said:
NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES | FindLaw

After he lost, he made sure the restraunt was filled with pro-slavery literature, and a the confederate flag. When his kids took over the business, they removed the racist symbols and literature, and put a more modern theme to the restaurants
Click to expand...
As near as I can tell from the link, this isn't about religion at all, but rather drive thru's.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
As near as I can tell from the link, this isn't about religion at all, but rather drive thru's.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Huh? What does the type of business have to do with it. The request was for a case where the individual claimed freedom of religion to deny service to customers based on race.

Such an example was provided:

"Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."​




NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC. | Leagle.com

>>>>
 
cpwill said:
As near as I can tell from the link, this isn't about religion at all, but rather drive thru's.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The argument that was actually used in court was it was trampling on his religious freedom for him to serve black customers to dine in.
 
RAMOSS said:
The argument that was actually used in court was it was trampling on his religious freedom for him to serve black customers to dine in.
Click to expand...
Okay - but I was looking for the language, where did it say that

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Lol, "slaves", what ridiculous hyperbole. Nobody is forcing anyone to be slaves or indentured servants. It's simply that if someone wants to operate a public business opened to the public, he needs to open to the public. He can't hang a "No Blacks Allowed" sign out front, and selling things to blacks or gays that he sells to whites is not making him a slave, especially as he agreed to sell those products to the public. If you operate a business open to the public you don't get to pick your customers.
Click to expand...

I agree, and wanted to point out that bs excuse wouldn't stay limited to non-heteros if they are allowed to use that specific excuse as Henrin was touting.

I somewhat agree with the concept of the right to refuse service, within limits like causing someone causing an uproar, insulting personnel, etc., but not based on one's personal preferences or traits. For example, I hate that neon chartruese some people wear, but I certainly would feel it would be wrong to refuse service to someone just because they were wearing that color, hence preference, ... traits are obvious so I'll not elaborate on them.
 
Summerwind said:
I agree, and wanted to point out that bs excuse wouldn't stay limited to non-heteros if they are allowed to use that specific excuse as Henrin was touting.

I somewhat agree with the concept of the right to refuse service, within limits like causing someone causing an uproar, insulting personnel, etc., but not based on one's personal preferences or traits. For example, I hate that neon chartruese some people wear, but I certainly would feel it would be wrong to refuse service to someone just because they were wearing that color, hence preference, ... traits are obvious so I'll not elaborate on them.
Click to expand...

Of course property rights, association rights, and the right to ones labor is not limited to a certain kind of transaction. Btw, I think it's fun how someone that mutilated their son is getting all up in an roar about someone not consenting to trade. lol. Then again, maybe your son keeping his body whole is less important than Cheetos.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, Libertarian-right poster that supports forcing people to serve others against their will, I will be sure to do that.
Click to expand...
Lol, what?



Ifthey don't want to serve certain people, but have no problem serving others that seems like enough reason for them to start a business.
Click to expand...
I would agree, so what is worn all the religious caterwalling? They are distracting from the issue. People should be allowed to choose which customers they want to serve. Reasons don't matter. They're mostly stupid.
 
Henrin said:
Of course property rights, association rights, and the right to ones labor is not limited to a certain kind of transaction. Btw, I think it's fun how someone that mutilated their son is getting all up roar about someone not consented to trade. lol. Then again, maybe your son keeping his body whole is less important than Cheetos.
Click to expand...

My son and to date all of his girlfriends are perfectly happy with his penis. In the end, that's all that matters regarding that issue. And on private property used for personal use/business is exactly as you suggest. Open to the public for business, then gotta be open to all public. Being paid equally for services or products rendered to one group as you are by another group is not anything akin to slavery or indentured servitude.
 
Summerwind said:
My son and to date all of his girlfriends are perfectly happy with his penis. In the end, that's all that matters regarding that issue. And on private property used for personal use/business is exactly as you suggest. Open to the public for business, then gotta be open to all public. Being paid equally for services or products rendered to one group as you are by another group is not anything akin to slavery or indentured servitude.
Click to expand...

Your son is ignorant of the truth. Tell me, why do you put some stupid transaction of Cheetos above the rights of your son? You never did answer that.

Oh and btw, what matters when it comes to that issue is that you removed bodily function from your son that permanently affected his life in a negative fashion. Do you know that what you did not only caused physical pain and damage, but causes mental damage as well? I bet you didn't.
 
Henrin said:
Your son is ignorant of the truth. Tell me, why do you put some stupid transaction of Cheetos about the rights of your son? You never did answer that.
Click to expand...

Cheetos? WTF are you typing about? My decisions about my son's circumcision is an inappropriate distraction in this thread.
 
Summerwind said:
Cheetos? WTF are you typing about? My decisions about my son's circumcision is an inappropriate distraction in this thread.
Click to expand...

Why is it inappropriate? It shows that you have no concept of the principles in play. The right to body sovereignty is the origin of both topics. The right to body integrity and the right to ones own labor and property are ALL born from body sovereignty.
 
Henrin said:
Of course property rights, association rights, and the right to ones labor is not limited to a certain kind of transaction. Btw, I think it's fun how someone that mutilated their son is getting all up in an roar about someone not consenting to trade. lol. Then again, maybe your son keeping his body whole is less important than Cheetos.
Click to expand...
Summerwind said:
My son and to date all of his girlfriends are perfectly happy with his penis. In the end, that's all that matters regarding that issue. And on private property used for personal use/business is exactly as you suggest. Open to the public for business, then gotta be open to all public. Being paid equally for services or products rendered to one group as you are by another group is not anything akin to slavery or indentured servitude.
Click to expand...

I think it's wildly hilarious that Henrin, potential deadbeat father and the same guy that passionately believes child support is slavery is dishing out parenting advice. That's like taking sex advice from a eunuch.
 
RAMOSS said:
Very white male Texan of you.
Click to expand...
Well look who is being racist and sexist.

However, .. your claims are about homosexuality and religion are ore in line with the feminist claims.
Click to expand...
No sir. I don't need special little laws to protect me. I think you mean to say my views on religion are more in line with left wing politics. But that's precisely why partisan hackery is stupid.

cpwills is more in line with the response to the feminists.
Click to expand...
That's utter equine excrement. If you just change out the word "religious" with sex or women. It's the exact same argument.

Waa waaa waaaaaa my rights are being trampled.
 
Henrin said:
Why is it inappropriate? It shows that you have no concept of the principles in play. The right to body sovereignty is the origin of both topics. The right to body integrity and the right to ones own labor and property are ALL born from body sovereignty.
Click to expand...

So my parents should've not allowed doctors to perform open heart surgery on me as a child without my permission?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I think it's wildly hilarious that Henrin, potential deadbeat father and the same guy that called child support slavery is giving parenting advice.
Click to expand...

Everyone that reads my posts should know where my children live. My son was not circumcised and lives with me. Oh, and this isn't parenting advice, it's ****ing humanity advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom