Indiana....

It's interesting, when you look at what they've noticeably lost already. GenCon said before the law passed they were gonna move the convention next year. WIlco cancelled shows, I'm sure other artists will follow, Angie's list cancelled building HQ there. NCAA is reconsidering holding events there, and more.

I love how the "defense" is that Arkansas, Kansas, and Mississippi passed similar laws. They're all not big players. THey dont' have an Indianapolis. Kansas's only real city is basically in Missouri. If part of your defense involves citing Mississippi, you're on the wrong side of the argument.
 
Did this all stem from the wedding cake business who refused to make a cake for a gay couple? An interesting debate. I personally believe that the company has a religious freedom to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple. I don't agree with it, but I think that is their right.
 
weso1 said:
Did this all stem from the wedding cake business who refused to make a cake for a gay couple? An interesting debate. I personally believe that the company has a religious freedom to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple. I don't agree with it, but I think that is their right.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think you can choose not to serve a gay couple, but your reason cannot be because you disagree with them being married. At least be creative and say you have too much work to do or something. If you advertise being bigoted to your clients, that's discrimination and a civil rights issue.
 
zitothebrave said:
I disagree. I think you can choose not to serve a gay couple, but your reason cannot be because you disagree with them being married. At least be creative and say you have too much work to do or something. If you advertise being bigoted to your clients, that's discrimination and a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...

This law has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's the same law that the U.S. Senate passed 97-3 under Bill Clinton and he signed it
 
Because apparently progressives are so emotionally invested in the false narrative that they can't even read so now politicians are going to have to explain it to people who, if only they'd read the bill, would understand it anyways. .

I love my gay friends and would never support anyone discriminating against them simply because they are gay. I wouldn't buy from a business that discriminated against them. I wouldn't associate with people who were hateful to them.

But I also would not support the efforts of my gay friends to force a Muslim to photograph their wedding or a Christian who opposes same sex marriages to cater it. I don't believe in using government force to make people associate with each other individually or in commerce and trade.

But let's make this clear for all the people still pushing a lie. There is no law in Indiana that makes it okay to put up a "no gays allowed" sign. There is no law that allows you to not serve a gay person a cake or a kick them out of your business. There is no law that actually allows any of the dozens of hypotheticals my liberal friends have pushed as a reason to be mad about the actual law.

The actual law says that a person with religious beliefs that would be substantially burdened by doing something cannot be forced to do that thing. And you must be able to prove in a court of law this SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN or else you will be held civilly liable for your actions.
 
This is pretty hilarious...

LINK: CONNECTICUT TO BOYCOTT INDIANA OVER RFRA, FORGETS IT HAS ITS OWN

Presient Obama isn't the only person who has selective memory when it comes to voting for and passing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

This morning, the governor of Connecticut, Dan Malloy, announced that he would be the first governor in the union to sign an executive order limiting state-sponsored travel to Indiana because of Indiana's ostensibly "discriminatory practices." He was so proud of this that he sent not one but two tweets patting himself on the back for his progressive stance on the subject, how he will not allow states to "turn back the clock" on all the progress we've made in the last two decades, and how he is standing up for truth, justice and the American way.

But Governor Dan Malloy has a teeny-tiny problem. Turns out, Connecticut has a RFRA, enacted in 1993, shortly after the Federal government passed theirs. And it's almost identical to the law that Indiana recently passed. It reads, in part:

(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.

The Washington Post even pointed it out on Friday, when they were taking special interest groups to task for boycotting Indiana but conveniently forgetting to boycott the 19 other states that have their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. So unless he's planning on banning state reimbursements for any travel within his own state, he's definitely got a consisentcy problem.
 
zitothebrave said:
I disagree. I think you can choose not to serve a gay couple, but your reason cannot be because you disagree with them being married. At least be creative and say you have too much work to do or something. If you advertise being bigoted to your clients, that's discrimination and a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...

I just don't think homosexual marriage is a right granted by the constitution, and I think it's a sensical position. I mean it seems reasonable for a person to believe that the idea of marriage is that which is of the idea of man and woman getting together. And in a free religion society in which people hold this view sacred for religious reasons, I think there's a logic to it. I personally don't agree with their position, but I think they have that religious right, but I think there is legitimate logic in their position.
 
It's not granted by the constitution. It's granted by civil rights. It's the next big battle to hit is the civil rights to include the LGBT community.

If they were a religious institution, they'd have the right to not serve those folks. But they're a business operating in the secular world, that doesn't afford them the same rights as a church or other religious institution.
 
zitothebrave said:
It's not granted by the constitution. It's granted by civil rights. It's the next big battle to hit is the civil rights to include the LGBT community.

If they were a religious institution, they'd have the right to not serve those folks. But they're a business operating in the secular world, that doesn't afford them the same rights as a church or other religious institution.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think it's granted by civil right either or most importantly the Bill of Rights. I think maybe certain liberal judges will believe it's a civil right, but I think these are pure homer liberal judges who are terrible at their job.
 
Discriminating someone based on sexual orientation is akin to discriminating someone in terms of race or religion which is expressly prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which has been upheld by the courts over and over again.
 
weso1 said:
I disagree. I don't think it's granted by civil right either or most importantly the Bill of Rights. I think maybe certain liberal judges will believe it's a civil right, but I think these are pure homer liberal judges who are terrible at their job.
Click to expand...

these words seem like you are trying to get on "Sean Hannitys great american panel"
 
zitothebrave said:
Discriminating someone based on sexual orientation is akin to discriminating someone in terms of race or religion which is expressly prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which has been upheld by the courts over and over again.
Click to expand...

not true.
 
Krgrecw said:
Have you read the civil rights act of 1964? Sexual orientation is not listed.
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? Or the ones before that? I don't think you did or your reading comprehension is horrific. Sexual orientation wasn't part of it because it wasn't a big thing back then. Therewill be an updated civil rights bill of 20XX (probably in the next decade) that updates it to include LGBT. Infact in post number 9 I said verbatim "It's not granted by the constitution. It's granted by civil rights. It's the next big battle to hit is the civil rights to include the LGBT community. "
 
So You admit that Weso was correct that homosexuality isn't a protected by civil rights but it will be one day?
 
Krgrecw said:
So You admit that Weso was correct that homosexuality isn't a protected by civil rights but it will be one day?
Click to expand...

Weso never said that it isn't protected by the Civil Rights act, he said ". I don't think it's granted by civil right either or most importantly the Bill of Rights" meaning he doesn't think it's a civil right period, not that it's not legally a civil right. Unless he wants to step in and clear up his statement.
 
The pussification of America continue. (See Mary Washington Rugby team as another).

If I went to a restaurant and the Owner didn't want to serve me bc. I am Christian, guess what, I will go eat elsewhere. That's not even the intent of the law, but you guys cry about everything.
 
gilesfan said:
The pussification of America continue. (See Mary Washington Rugby team as another).

If I went to a restaurant and the Owner didn't want to serve me bc. I am Christian, guess what, I will go eat elsewhere. That's not even the intent of the law, but you guys cry about everything.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about pussification, why do Christians in this country feel the need to try and pass legislation like the Indiana bill in this country? Are they afraid of gays?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top