• 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!

Gay Republicans; feeling the love?

disneydude said:
The Indiana law was a hateful piece of discrimination that was widely denounced. It wasn't about "pro-religious freedom"...it was about legislating legal discrimination.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It didn't mandate discrimination. Everyone was still free to not discriminate. The problem is that most people really have no proper understanding of liberty.
 
Fishking said:
No it wasn't. It didn't mandate discrimination. Everyone was still free to not discriminate. The problem is that most people really have no proper understanding of liberty.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said the bill "mandated" anything. And of course everyone was free to not discriminate, and the vast majority would not, but that's not the point. The purpose of the bill (at least according to many proponents) was to give legal cover to discrimination by private entities against LGBT so long as they chanted some magic words about "religious beliefs." And it certainly expanded the circumstances when that discrimination could legally occur. These people pushing the bill weren't members of minority religions worried about using peyote or something - they were evangelicals, who bitterly opposed SSM and followed that loss up with this bill. Everyone knew the point of it.

And if the issue is liberty, then I see no reason at all to draw a line between discrimination for "religious" purposes and for any other purpose, against LGBT, blacks, Jews, women, fat people, Christians, whatever. Let's make it clear what we're allowing here and do away with the ridiculous requirement that the person can discriminate but only if his or her religion tells them it's OK.

Bottom line is if it's about liberty then anyone should be able to deny services to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. The libertarians are at least consistent on that point.
 
JasperL said:
I don't think anyone said the bill "mandated" anything. And of course everyone was free to not discriminate, and the vast majority would not, but that's not the point. The purpose of the bill (at least according to many proponents) was to give legal cover to discrimination by private entities against LGBT so long as they chanted some magic words about "religious beliefs." And it certainly expanded the circumstances when that discrimination could legally occur. These people pushing the bill weren't members of minority religions worried about using peyote or something - they were evangelicals, who bitterly opposed SSM and followed that loss up with this bill. Everyone knew the point of it.

And if the issue is liberty, then I see no reason at all to draw a line between discrimination for "religious" purposes and for any other purpose, against LGBT, blacks, Jews, women, fat people, Christians, whatever. Let's make it clear what we're allowing here and do away with the ridiculous requirement that the person can discriminate but only if his or her religion tells them it's OK.

Bottom line is if it's about liberty then anyone should be able to deny services to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. The libertarians are at least consistent on that point.
Click to expand...

You're right on that. I actually think that making the exemption for only religious reasons would be a violation of the equal protection clause. I don't believe the state has much right to dictate how a private entity should be run.
 
SheWolf said:
The state was going to lose millions of dollars in revenue because of the law. Pence would have been a moron to move ahead with it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Money > Freedom.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
CLAX1911 said:
The law didn't establish any freedom.
Click to expand...
Naturally. Laws can't establish freedoms. This law was intended to protect said freedoms.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Trump picking Pence proves that the backward social conservatives in the GOP still wield waaaaaaay to much power in the party. Trump needs to make nice with quite a few demographics to have a chance to win. Women. Hispanics are the 2 biggies. But he picks a typical angry old white guy who's one of the biggest social conservatives in the GOP as a running mate?

Typical GOP.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. Money > Freedom.
Click to expand...

Nothing says "freedom" like discrimination by some people against a small group of people (but not other groups) they don't like!

Why should the "freedom" to discriminate be limited to the "religious" and only against some people? If discrimination is an important freedom, it should be available to anyone against anyone for any damn reason they want, and if so the white supremacists in the South were correct all along as far as their 'freedom' is concerned and the CRA should be repealed.

If Pence and his buddies want to run on that, good luck to them.
 
cpwill said:
Naturally. Laws can't establish freedoms. This law was intended to protect said freedoms.
Click to expand...

Protect 'freedoms' for some people who could at least plausibly chant some magic words about their deeply held religious beliefs. Didn't do a thing for anyone else's 'freedoms.'

And if you're honest about it, you'll at least recognize and deal with the fact that this 'freedom' stuff works both ways. If we legalize discrimination, those who are discriminated against have their 'freedoms' curtailed or harmed. Someone fired from their job for being gay/black/Jewish are less free than those who don't face such a penalty, for example. If they can't marry who they love they are less 'free' than those who can. Etc.
 
Fishking said:
No it wasn't. It didn't mandate discrimination. Everyone was still free to not discriminate. The problem is that most people really have no proper understanding of liberty.
Click to expand...

It codified the right to discriminate. Why do you think it came under so much pressure that the bigots had to back down?
 
CLAX1911 said:
No it wasn't it was designed to establish a privilege for religion
Click to expand...
Religion already has such a privilege. There's even an Amendment about it.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
Naturally. Laws can't establish freedoms. This law was intended to protect said freedoms.

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

I'm religious what freedoms of mine needed "protecting"?
 
LaylaWindu said:
I'm religious what freedoms of mine needed "protecting"?
Click to expand...
The right not to be forced to violate your faith. For example, I do not - and should not - have the right to force a Muslim chef to make me pork chops, as that violates his faith. The Law should not allow me to target Muslims by taking advantage of their religious beliefs in that manner.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
The right not to be forced to violate your faith. For example, I do not - and should not - have the right to force a Muslim chef to make me pork chops, as that violates his faith. The Law should not allow me to target Muslims by taking advantage of their religious beliefs in that manner.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Rights or freedoms?
People in this country are forcing muslim chefs to make pork chops? or forcing people to violate their faith?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Yeah. Money > Freedom.
Click to expand...

All Pence and the legislature did by 'caving' in for the "Money" was provide LGBT the same public accommodation protections available to Christians, Jews, blacks, women, etc.

The apologists say it wasn't all about the gays. And then they whine about him caving over money by signing amendments to the bill to reflect that.....it wasn't all about the gays. All the other protections for 'religious freedom' in the original bill were left intact EXCEPT the legal cover (freedom) to discriminate against LGBT.
 
disneydude said:
It codified the right to discriminate. Why do you think it came under so much pressure that the bigots had to back down?
Click to expand...

Because statist-loving liberals don't like people practicing freedom if it contradicts their own beliefs?
 
cpwill said:
Well, yes. Pence backed down. Buy that is what it was designed to do.
Click to expand...

The changes simply confirmed that the new law could not be used as a defense in a public accommodation claim, and explicitly included LGBT in the same protected classes as religion, race, sex, etc. The only 'freedom' sacrificed by the changes was the freedom to discriminate against gays. If you think otherwise, cite the changes to the bill that you disagree with - text is here:

Read the text of proposed RFRA changes
 
cpwill said:
The right not to be forced to violate your faith. For example, I do not - and should not - have the right to force a Muslim chef to make me pork chops, as that violates his faith. The Law should not allow me to target Muslims by taking advantage of their religious beliefs in that manner.

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

The law does not in fact allow you to target Muslims in that manner! What the law does do and has since the CRA is say that if Muslim chef makes pork chops for his Muslim friends, and atheists, etc. he cannot refuse to make pork chops for you, BECAUSE YOU ARE CHRISTIAN. He can refuse service to you for being rude, not dressed appropriately, etc. but he can't hang a "No Christians" sign out front. That's it.

You might as well be honest and use the wedding cake example, and that you don't think a Christian should have to bake cakes for the gays or a gay wedding. The problem is the law as written would have allowed for broad discrimination against gays - hotels, lodging, jobs, any other good or service provider, and just by citing a 'deeply held religious belief' against something something the gays.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You're freedom to discriminate against people apparntly. It seems to be all Christianity is about
Click to expand...

Ha! Well I know you are being sarcastic and unfortunately there are some people that feel that way but we both know that's not the case. Christianity doesn't give me any special rights, I have the same as everybody else and my ability to discriminate against any item of choice is based on the law and rights of others. My personal religions doesn't change that, what is illegal discrimination for a non christian is the same as it is for a christian. Yes some people don't understand that, no matter what group they associate with.
 
Fishking said:
Because statist-loving liberals don't like people practicing freedom if it contradicts their own beliefs?
Click to expand...

Well, no, statist loving liberals since the CRA in the 1960s don't like arbitrary discrimination against disfavored minorities in the markets or labor force, which is why I can't remember any efforts to repeal the CRA and public accommodation laws in general. The only disputes are whether the gays should be protected like Christians and Jews and blacks.

I think that's a view shared by pretty much all demographics in the U.S. (conservative, liberal) except for reality-challenged libertarians. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom