• 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's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers


The point was that discrimination is perfectly ethical and legal, excepting certain legal regulations. Science isn't based in lefty dogma, even if many laws are.
 
disneydude said:
If you don't know the answer....I suggest that you take a conlaw course. There is a little something in the Constitution called "Equal protection" and the 14th Amendment. You might want to read them sometime.
Click to expand...

Our constitution creates a federal government, not a national one. State legislatures do not need to get the approval of "the American people" for the laws they make. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause is not relevant to Indiana's RFRA. There are no significant differences between the Indiana statute and the federal RFRA that was the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case. In fact the Indiana law applies to for-profit corporations, just as the Court interpreted the federal RFRA to do in Hobby Lobby.
 

Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Obama all voted for RFRA, its curious that its a problem now.

My view-its a distraction while the Obama presidency continues to fail.
 

I think it is. Beyond that this law only protects the business from being sued-thats all it does. I think thats reasonable.

Whats amusing to me is minorities (who tend to vote democrat) overwhelmingly are against gay marriage. Its going to be interesting to see the left juggle this fact.
 

Not only do they not respond-because they dont want to put the resources into cases/jurisdictions where its not going to have an impact-but they actually LOOK for cases where the opposite might be true.

Whats amusing to me is this is common knowledge. Frankly it standard practice in activist circles.
 

There's where you are wrong. Read the statutes. I posted a link yesterday that laid out the very key differences. You might want to take a look.

Here is the link again: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/
 
cpwill said:
i have no idea, having no idea what you are referencing. But that is a different question than the one I was answering, and it is thus a bit of a strawman for you to attempt to conflate the two.
Click to expand...

It's simple enough. Your assertion, which is the basic talking point for conservatives, is the bill doesn't allow for discrimination, and that is indeed the history of the law. It hasn't (to this point) been anything like a blank check to claim a religious exemption to a general law. Fair enough.

But the Governor of Indiana was asked six times if private businesses could discriminate in Indiana and six times said, paraphrasing, "No Comment."

Maybe the point is it's always been legal to discriminate against LGBT in Indiana, so the law made no substantive change to acts already allowed except in a few jurisdictions in the state. So perhaps the big change is people can put a religious sheen on their acts of bigotry? Not sure. If so of course he can't say THAT, but he did say that he has no intention of supporting legislation that would protect LGBT in public accommodations.

But what's funny is right wingers are telling gays there's nothing to worry about. But the Governor goes on national TV and SIX TIMES refuses to confirm that message. Proudly anti-SSM/gay supporters of the bill sold it as a way to protect Christians from teh gays, and of course they now oppose any "clarification" of the bill that would protect LGBT. Those supporters were invited to positions of honor at the bill signing, and Pence votes with them 100% of the time. Is there any wonder why people ARE worried? All they did was listen to Pence and the anti-SSM supporters of the bill who tell us the purpose of the bill is to allow for at least some discrimination against teh gays and who now oppose "clarifying" the bill to make any protections for LGBT explicit.
 

I would agree with that...but it is not the over-riding concern in my experience. The #1 criteria for whether we took up a complaint was whether the person had a righteous claim and was likely to prevail. Obviously...if the case could have a broader impact, that was another factor that encouraged us to accept the case. If it were something that the only impact would be on the individual, then the ACLU was probably not the best organization to bring the claim forward as we had limited resources and had a duty to those who donated to make the best use of the money.
 

No. The relative sexes of the people involved in the event was the reason for the refusal, their presumed sexuality (many laws actually include presumed sexuality as protected from discrimination too). Just as if the mother of the bride ordered the cake for her daughter's wedding, since her daughter was not in the state but returning to the state for the wedding (the same as I did). Mom is making arrangements and when she goes to pick out the cake, she shows a picture to the person of her daughter and her daughter's husband to be, who is black while the woman and her daughter are white. The baker then tells her he can't provide a cake for her wedding because his religion objects to interracial marriages/relationships (some still do) believing they are sinful. That is still illegal discrimination, despite the fact that it isn't against the actual person buying the cake.
 
US Conservative said:
The point was that discrimination is perfectly ethical and legal, excepting certain legal regulations. Science isn't based in lefty dogma, even if many laws are.
Click to expand...

I've said that already. Certain types of discrimination are not legal, including discrimination against people for their sexuality in many states.
 

Lolz Im reminded of an incident a few years back-the city of LA decided it was going to boycott Arizona over a law it had passed. LA gets much of its electrical power from AZ. The AZ power company actually contacted the Mayors office and asked them if they wanted to discontinue its electrical from the company-and the Mayor said no. :lol:
 
disneydude said:
There's where you are wrong. Read the statutes. I posted a link yesterday that laid out the very key differences. You might want to take a look.
Click to expand...

I have read both statutes, and there are no significant differences between them. You are trying to peddle baloney, because you disrespect the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion that the federal and state RFRA's are meant to protect.
 

then you have a reading comprehension issue...because the differences are very clear. It would probably help you to look at the link. Its laid out in pretty elementary fashion.
 

It depends on the poll and is changing quickly:

Polling Tracks Growing and Increasingly Diverse Support for the Freedom to Marry | Freedom to Marry


That's a pro-SSM site, so I assume they cherry picked the polls but the point is public opinion has basically flipped in just a few years, and support for SSM among minorities is changing a bit slower, but has already reached at least near neutral status. Even young evangelicals support SSM in most polls I've seen.
 

Im not denying views are changing, in fact the real dichotomy here is between generations, but overall SSM has less support amongst minority groups. Its one reason why proposition 8 passed here in CA. Lefties were butthurt-but instead of "blaming" minorities for this, they decided it was safer to attack Mormons. :lol:
 

No. Forcing a person to actually be involved in a same sex marriage would be similar to forcing them to be in the military. This is like a conscientious objector taking it a step further and saying they shouldn't have to pay taxes because their tax money is going, at least in part, to paying for our country to kill people in wars. After all, their tax dollars are supporting those wars without them being able to determine where their specific tax money goes.
 

Considering that Mormons funded the proposition and the incredibly deceptive propoganda campaign...the criticism of Mormons was and is valid. Sorry.

You talk in another post about "people outside of the state can pound sand"....LOL....you do realize that almost all of the prop 8 funding came from outside of California, right?
 
Paperview said:
I live in a small town. One bakery.

Not another one for 30 miles.

What is the point?
Click to expand...

And 30 miles is nothing, right next door in these days of awesome individual transportation and mobility.
 
roguenuke said:
I've said that already. Certain types of discrimination are not legal, including discrimination against people for their sexuality in many states.
Click to expand...

Indeed and perfectly legal in most states. Including Indiana.
 

California has already been discussed, but it's clear the generational divide is the biggest, followed by religion.

The real statistic IMO is how many of us have a friend or family member we know is gay.

Americans with a gay or lesbian friend rose from 22 percent in 1993 to 65 percent today, Cox said.
Click to expand...

eace
 
clownboy said:
Indeed and perfectly legal in most states. Including Indiana.
Click to expand...

Actually, it depends. There could still be some provisions against a doctor refusing to give a couple of the opposite sex abortifacient drugs and giving them to a same sex couple. This could easily be seen as a breach of medical ethics. It would be similar to refusing to give birth control to a married woman, but giving them to a single woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…