• 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 governor: New law 'not about discrimination'

SlevinKelevra said:
you support a government that may be acting to enable discrimination?
Click to expand...

Part of a free society is allowing to discriminate on their private property.
 
Dovkan said:
I agree, then that is "control' done by everyone, the common people. Sounds good to me.
Click to expand...

Rule of the mob is just as stupid as the rule of one.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
private property that is not for use of public accommodation.
Click to expand...

A place of business is a private property unless it's tax money paying for the rent, utilities, the worker's salaries. But this thinking of businesses is not private property comes is the reason why Goldwater oppose the Civil Rights act. Unless you are telling when I go to places of businesses or stadiums and the signs say it is private property that the signs are wrong?
 
iguanaman said:
Freedom to use hate and bigotry to poison our society is not freedom it is tyranny.
Click to expand...

No the Tyranny is using the power of government to force people to stop being bigots.
 
iguanaman said:
Are you saying we should have let a law protectng bigotry go unnoticed? Ignore it and it will go away? I think we have found quite clearly that bigotry thrives on ignorance.
Click to expand...

You could classify it bigotry against religious people if you wanted to start labeling it. The constitution grants us the ability to practice religion without government interference. This law just reinforces that and it only addresses the governments reaction to religious disputes. I think it's reasonable that those disputes be handed civilly, not by regulation which is unconstitutional.
 
sawdust said:
Didn't say you couldn't bitch about anything you wish. It's just that on a prioritized list of the worlds issues, this ranks very low on my list.
Click to expand...

Even lower on my list:

For-profit business owners that hold out to the public and insist on their "right" to discriminate against people on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexuality.
 
sawdust said:
You could classify it bigotry against religious people if you wanted to start labeling it. The constitution grants us the ability to practice religion without government interference. This law just reinforces that and it only addresses the governments reaction to religious disputes. I think it's reasonable that those disputes be handed civilly, not by regulation which is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Public accommodation laws aren't unconstitutional.
 
Deuce said:
Public accommodation laws aren't unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

This is not a public accommodation issue. It's still illegal for any business to refuse service to any minority.
 
Deuce said:
Even lower on my list:

For-profit business owners that hold out to the public and insist on their "right" to discriminate against people on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexuality.
Click to expand...

At issue is wether gay couples can force people to participate in their weddings against their will because it's against their religious principles. Should a doctor be forced to perform abortions if he has a religious objection? If he doesn't should the government intervene. It's the same issue.
 
Deuce said:
And the right to conscience doesn't cover discrimination on the basis of sexuality, race, gender, or religion. That causes harm too.
Click to expand...

Freedom of Religion is our First Amendment right. Being forced to go to the next number on the Google search page is not harm sufficient to run roughshod over that.
 
cpwill said:
Freedom of Religion is our First Amendment right. Being forced to go to the next number on the Google search page is not harm sufficient to run roughshod over that.
Click to expand...

Since you want the Govt.. to condone discriminatory behavior why not regulate it and require "No gays allowed" signs on these establishments so at least SS couples won't have the embarrassment of being thrown out on their ears because they love the wrong person. The best way to combat bigotry is to put it all out in the open.
 
sawdust said:
This is not a public accommodation issue. It's still illegal for any business to refuse service to any minority.
Click to expand...

This is actually wrong. It is illegal for any business to refuse service to a person based on a protected classification, not for being a "minority". If a bar in your neighborhood refused to serve you because you are white, Christian, or male, it is still violating public accommodation laws.
 
cpwill said:
Freedom of Religion is our First Amendment right. Being forced to go to the next number on the Google search page is not harm sufficient to run roughshod over that.
Click to expand...

Unless there is no "next number" on the page. Or the "next number" also claims the same exemption for their religious beliefs.
 
roguenuke said:
Evidence for this assertion? (From here in the US, not some other country.) Real evidence such as churches being forced to actually do something that violates their religion rather than something dealing with a business they own. Perhaps evidence that an LGBT group was able to disban completely a church group just because they were Christian. Some evidence that the LGBT movement has harmed churches, synagogues, etc in any significant way.
Click to expand...

Gay Totalitarianism and the Coming Persecution of Christians

The persecution has been going on for quite a few years now.
 
Somerville said:
Is this link to a satire site? It can't be real, it is too exaggerated and loaded with hyperbolic claims
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's a satire site. I might be proven wrong, fine, but I don't think so.

Just have to recall all the Christians being slaughtered by the 100's at the hands of Muslim extremists in the ME, for example.
 
eohrnberger said:
No, I don't think it's a satire site. I might be proven wrong, fine, but I don't think so.

Just have to recall all the Christians being slaughtered by the 100's at the hands of Muslim extremists in the ME, for example.
Click to expand...

Uh . . . you did read post #291 didn't you? You know the one in which you responded to roguenuke, which for some reason I don't see relates to post #293. Well, that is unless you think the same thing happening in the Middle East is also taking place in the US today -- then maybe they are connected.
 
Somerville said:
Uh . . . you did read post #291 didn't you? You know the one in which you responded to roguenuke, which for some reason I don't see relates to post #293. Well, that is unless you think the same thing happening in the Middle East is also taking place in the US today -- then maybe they are connected.
Click to expand...

Matter of degree, perhaps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom