Blues States banning travel to Indiana is an Act of War

[Missouri_Mike]

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

Have you not been following the discussion, private entities don't even figure into the subject.

I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the constitution a state is required to spend public funds for unnecessary travel.

No such requirement exists. Making your 'commerce clause' violation an impossibility.

You left wing assholes expanded the commerce clause to encompass pretty much any interaction that can be conceived yet now you want to ratchet it down? Are you kidding me?

I'm not the one arguing that the commerce clause mandates that states spend public funds on unnecessary travel. You're barking at the wrong 'asshole'.

Nah, based on your posts here I got the right asshole.

 

[Skylar]

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

Have you not been following the discussion, private entities don't even figure into the subject.

I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the constitution a state is required to spend public funds for unnecessary travel.

No such requirement exists. Making your 'commerce clause' violation an impossibility.

You left wing assholes expanded the commerce clause to encompass pretty much any interaction that can be conceived yet now you want to ratchet it down? Are you kidding me?

I'm not the one arguing that the commerce clause mandates that states spend public funds on unnecessary travel. You're barking at the wrong 'asshole'.

Nah, based on your posts here I got the right asshole.

Based on your posts here, you really aren't following the conversation.

 

[Montrovant]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

Have you not been following the discussion, private entities don't even figure into the subject.

Private entities certainly do figure into the subject. Just what kind of embargo is it if anyone can do business with Indiana? And who, exactly, is prohibited from traveling to Indiana?

 

[Skylar]

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

Have you not been following the discussion, private entities don't even figure into the subject.

Private entities certainly do figure into the subject. Just what kind of embargo is it if anyone can do business with Indiana? And who, exactly, is prohibited from traveling to Indiana?

You're getting factual. This is about raw emotion. Your fact based reasoning is fucking it up.

 

[auditor0007]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

*big YAWN*

 

[SwimExpert]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

So, choosing where your money is spent is an act of war, designed to make other people suffer. But refusing to provide services to gay people is religious freedom?

Fucking Christ, you're deluded.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"Today, I direct all agencies, departments, boards and commissions to immediately review all requests for state funded or state sponsored travel to the State of Indiana and to bar any such publicly funded travel that is not essential to the enforcement of state law or public health and safety. The ban on publicly funded travel shall take effect immediately.

"New York State has been, and will continue to be, a leader in ensuring that all LGBT persons enjoy full and equal civil rights. With this action, we stand by our LGBT family members, friends and colleagues to ensure that their rights are respected."

Today, I, the Governor of New York, commission this Act of War (trade sanction) against the State of Indiana, as we stand by our allies (democrat voting block) against their Enemy (conservatives and constitutionalists).

 

[J.E.D]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

The time for armed revolution moves ever closer. If you value your freedom, as guaranteed by our Constitution, prepare or succumb...

Let's roll!

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is asking your, darkwind or those who think like you, to give up your values or beliefs.

But your values and beliefs in the public commerce cannot prevent others from purchasing the goods and services as they are provided to everyone else.

What would Jesus say? He would, say, "Love your neighbor, sell to him, don;t be stupid."

You're not very cognizant of the world around you if you think that. When I say to someone, "I will not participate in your lifestyle on religious grounds" and then have to spend time, money, resources and have lies told about Me ruining My reputation, then your nuts if y ou think no one is trying to make Me give up My values and religious freedom. We even allow conscientious objectors in times of war....but I guess in times of peace, just keep your values locked away and do not display or act upon them.

If you are saying, "I won't provide goods and services to LGBT as I do everybody else in public commerce," that simply is not telling you what to believe or how to worship. It is telling you how to do business: equally.

 

[J.E.D]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

In My opinion, it is the first salvo of the New American Civil War.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is asking your, darkwind or those who think like you, to give up your values or beliefs.

But your values and beliefs in the public commerce cannot prevent others from purchasing the goods and services as they are provided to everyone else.

What would Jesus say? He would, say, "Love your neighbor, sell to him, don;t be stupid."

He would say, "2dA, go take your meds, please."

This is what Jesus said:
Matthew 5:17

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets.

Now read Leviticus 20:13

Doesn't matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

Oh my, the discriminators crying discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

In My opinion, it is the first salvo of the New American Civil War.

Nope. See, here's the problem: folks under 30 don't have a problem with gays. In fact, you have to go all the way to the 65+ group before you'll find a demo where the majority opposes gay marriage or gay rights. Wars generally aren't fought by seniors. They're fought by young men.

And millenials aren't killing anyone because some geezer doesn't like gay folks. Your 'new american civil war' has plenty of arm chair warriors. But precious few actual soldiers. There's always an excuse why its someone else's responsibility to fight. Always some excuse why the arm chair commando themselves won't actualy fight themselves.

Its a sea of half-assed Jeffersons. And not a Hamilton or Washington among them.

No, you are off base and here is how. I don't have a problem with gays, or any group of people.

UNTIL THEY DEMAND I GIVE UP MY RIGHTS AND VALUES.

The entire issue with Connecticut is their desire to silence religious freedom and they are using the convenient excuse of gays to do this. One of the big reasons this country was founded and we fought a war against England was that the English Monarchy and Parliament demanded that people worship their way, and have the values they said you must have. The right to hold religious views cannot be infringed upon by any government within the territorial borders of the United States. We have codified that right into the very foundational document of our country.

It is one thing for people to disagree with religion and religious beliefs, but a completely different animal when a government sanctions the silencing of the First Amendment. When said government makes policy that they will intentionlly prosecute economic sanctions against another state, that is a civil war. Simply because this is over religious freedom rather than slavery does not make it any less a war.

Would you allow the Catholic Church to bring back the Inquisition?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too many people have a VERY warped notion of what religious freedom amounts to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Talk of "armed revolution" boggles the reason of an intelligent mind.

In East Texas, I would imagine the good citizens would take such outlaws, without any help from LEO, and tie them down in the woods for the hogs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

In My opinion, it is the first salvo of the New American Civil War.

Nope. See, here's the problem: folks under 30 don't have a problem with gays. In fact, you have to go all the way to the 65+ group before you'll find a demo where the majority opposes gay marriage or gay rights. Wars generally aren't fought by seniors. They're fought by young men.

And millenials aren't killing anyone because some geezer doesn't like gay folks. Your 'new american civil war' has plenty of arm chair warriors. But precious few actual soldiers. There's always an excuse why its someone else's responsibility to fight. Always some excuse why the arm chair commando themselves won't actualy fight themselves.

Its a sea of half-assed Jeffersons. And not a Hamilton or Washington among them.

No, you are off base and here is how. I don't have a problem with gays, or any group of people.

UNTIL THEY DEMAND I GIVE UP MY RIGHTS AND VALUES.

The entire issue with Connecticut is their desire to silence religious freedom and they are using the convenient excuse of gays to do this. One of the big reasons this country was founded and we fought a war against England was that the English Monarchy and Parliament demanded that people worship their way, and have the values they said you must have. The right to hold religious views cannot be infringed upon by any government within the territorial borders of the United States. We have codified that right into the very foundational document of our country.

It is one thing for people to disagree with religion and religious beliefs, but a completely different animal when a government sanctions the silencing of the First Amendment. When said government makes policy that they will intentionlly prosecute economic sanctions against another state, that is a civil war. Simply because this is over religious freedom rather than slavery does not make it any less a war.

Would you allow the Catholic Church to bring back the Inquisition?

I know some followers of conservative French Catholicism would cheer for that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you can't reconcile your religious 'laws' with the laws regulating business, or a business,

then your religious 'freedom' consists of the freedom to choose not to go into that business.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

In My opinion, it is the first salvo of the New American Civil War.

Nope. See, here's the problem: folks under 30 don't have a problem with gays. In fact, you have to go all the way to the 65+ group before you'll find a demo where the majority opposes gay marriage or gay rights. Wars generally aren't fought by seniors. They're fought by young men.

And millenials aren't killing anyone because some geezer doesn't like gay folks. Your 'new american civil war' has plenty of arm chair warriors. But precious few actual soldiers. There's always an excuse why its someone else's responsibility to fight. Always some excuse why the arm chair commando themselves won't actualy fight themselves.

Its a sea of half-assed Jeffersons. And not a Hamilton or Washington among them.

No, you are off base and here is how. I don't have a problem with gays, or any group of people.

UNTIL THEY DEMAND I GIVE UP MY RIGHTS AND VALUES.

The entire issue with Connecticut is their desire to silence religious freedom and they are using the convenient excuse of gays to do this. One of the big reasons this country was founded and we fought a war against England was that the English Monarchy and Parliament demanded that people worship their way, and have the values they said you must have. The right to hold religious views cannot be infringed upon by any government within the territorial borders of the United States. We have codified that right into the very foundational document of our country.

It is one thing for people to disagree with religion and religious beliefs, but a completely different animal when a government sanctions the silencing of the First Amendment. When said government makes policy that they will intentionlly prosecute economic sanctions against another state, that is a civil war. Simply because this is over religious freedom rather than slavery does not make it any less a war.

Would you allow the Catholic Church to bring back the Inquisition?

I know some followers of conservative French Catholicism would cheer for that.

lol, yeah I knew it wasn't a perfect example.

I've kind of worn out the example of Mormon polygamy as a religious right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In My opinion, it is the first salvo of the New American Civil War.

Nope. See, here's the problem: folks under 30 don't have a problem with gays. In fact, you have to go all the way to the 65+ group before you'll find a demo where the majority opposes gay marriage or gay rights. Wars generally aren't fought by seniors. They're fought by young men.

And millenials aren't killing anyone because some geezer doesn't like gay folks. Your 'new american civil war' has plenty of arm chair warriors. But precious few actual soldiers. There's always an excuse why its someone else's responsibility to fight. Always some excuse why the arm chair commando themselves won't actualy fight themselves.

Its a sea of half-assed Jeffersons. And not a Hamilton or Washington among them.

No, you are off base and here is how. I don't have a problem with gays, or any group of people.

UNTIL THEY DEMAND I GIVE UP MY RIGHTS AND VALUES.

The entire issue with Connecticut is their desire to silence religious freedom and they are using the convenient excuse of gays to do this. One of the big reasons this country was founded and we fought a war against England was that the English Monarchy and Parliament demanded that people worship their way, and have the values they said you must have. The right to hold religious views cannot be infringed upon by any government within the territorial borders of the United States. We have codified that right into the very foundational document of our country.

It is one thing for people to disagree with religion and religious beliefs, but a completely different animal when a government sanctions the silencing of the First Amendment. When said government makes policy that they will intentionlly prosecute economic sanctions against another state, that is a civil war. Simply because this is over religious freedom rather than slavery does not make it any less a war.

Would you allow the Catholic Church to bring back the Inquisition?

I know some followers of conservative French Catholicism would cheer for that.

lol, yeah I knew it wasn't a perfect example.

I've kind of worn out the example of Mormon polygamy as a religious right.

Hey, I know some Mormons who believe in the peculiar practice.

And it explains why they root for the Giants.

Those boys ain't right.

 

[Politico]

No one is banning travel to Indiana you Leftytoon psycho. As previously mentioned seek help.