Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill

[The Rabbi]

My home state doing it right, well done Indiana, well done

Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill 63-31

INDIANAPOLIS -The debate over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is now over. The Indiana House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed the bill in a 63-31 vote Monday afternoon.

It now goes back to the Senate to make sure everybody agrees with some changes. Then it heads to the governor's desk for his signature.

Governor Mike Pence says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law, but not everyone is happy about that.

Indiana House passes religious freedom bill 63-31 - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Bummer. Gonna suck when it's struck down as unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution force a person to bake a cake they don't want to bake? Isn't that involuntary servitude?

It's the Equal Accomodation laws. You know, those things you can't stand but I swore to uphold.

You swore to uphold equal accomodation laws? Where? NAMBLA?

 

[martybegan]

Funny how they name these laws the opposite of what they really are.

Well, they couldn't exactly name it the STRAIGHTS ONLY LUNCH COUNTER ACT, now could they?

Because gay people are being denied seats at lunch counters, right?

What do you think the purpose of this bill is, dipshit?

It's so bigots can have STRAIGHTS ONLY businesses.

As long as they put a sign up, in this day and age, the market will handle it. And I doubt most actual walk in, cash/carry type businesses would even resort to this. What this prevents is people having to decide between their religious convictions and going out of business when it comes to a good or service that is 1) non-vital and 2) not really a public accommodation at all.

Like I said, they couldn't exactly name it the STRAIGHTS ONLY LUNCH COUNTER ACT, now could they.

But that's exactly what it is.

How about we name PA laws the "Bake the fucking cake or go out of business" Act?

 

[The Rabbi]

Funny how they name these laws the opposite of what they really are.

Well, they couldn't exactly name it the STRAIGHTS ONLY LUNCH COUNTER ACT, now could they?

Because gay people are being denied seats at lunch counters, right?

What do you think the purpose of this bill is, dipshit?

It's so bigots can have STRAIGHTS ONLY businesses.

As long as they put a sign up, in this day and age, the market will handle it. And I doubt most actual walk in, cash/carry type businesses would even resort to this. What this prevents is people having to decide between their religious convictions and going out of business when it comes to a good or service that is 1) non-vital and 2) not really a public accommodation at all.

Like I said, they couldn't exactly name it the STRAIGHTS ONLY LUNCH COUNTER ACT, now could they.

But that's exactly what it is.

You'll have to explain that one, Leroy. How is a business going to erect a "straights only" sign anywhere?

 

[bodecea]

My home state doing it right, well done Indiana, well done

Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill 63-31

INDIANAPOLIS -The debate over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is now over. The Indiana House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed the bill in a 63-31 vote Monday afternoon.

It now goes back to the Senate to make sure everybody agrees with some changes. Then it heads to the governor's desk for his signature.

Governor Mike Pence says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law, but not everyone is happy about that.

Indiana House passes religious freedom bill 63-31 - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Bummer. Gonna suck when it's struck down as unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution force a person to bake a cake they don't want to bake? Isn't that involuntary servitude?

It's the Equal Accomodation laws. You know, those things you can't stand but I swore to uphold.

You swore to uphold equal accomodation laws? Where? NAMBLA?

Now...why in the world does NAMBLA pop up into your head?

 

[bodecea]

Well, they couldn't exactly name it the STRAIGHTS ONLY LUNCH COUNTER ACT, now could they?

Because gay people are being denied seats at lunch counters, right?

What do you think the purpose of this bill is, dipshit?

It's so bigots can have STRAIGHTS ONLY businesses.

As long as they put a sign up, in this day and age, the market will handle it. And I doubt most actual walk in, cash/carry type businesses would even resort to this. What this prevents is people having to decide between their religious convictions and going out of business when it comes to a good or service that is 1) non-vital and 2) not really a public accommodation at all.

Like I said, they couldn't exactly name it the STRAIGHTS ONLY LUNCH COUNTER ACT, now could they.

But that's exactly what it is.

You'll have to explain that one, Leroy. How is a business going to erect a "straights only" sign anywhere?

Easily....by the front entrance. Behind the service counters. In the employee lunch room. Places like that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, they couldn't exactly name it the STRAIGHTS ONLY LUNCH COUNTER ACT, now could they?

Because gay people are being denied seats at lunch counters, right?

What do you think the purpose of this bill is, dipshit?

It's so bigots can have STRAIGHTS ONLY businesses.

As long as they put a sign up, in this day and age, the market will handle it. And I doubt most actual walk in, cash/carry type businesses would even resort to this. What this prevents is people having to decide between their religious convictions and going out of business when it comes to a good or service that is 1) non-vital and 2) not really a public accommodation at all.

Like I said, they couldn't exactly name it the STRAIGHTS ONLY LUNCH COUNTER ACT, now could they.

But that's exactly what it is.

How about we name PA laws the "Bake the fucking cake or go out of business" Act?

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

 

[BlindBoo]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

 

[The Rabbi]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

The Supreme court doesnt pass acts.
You fail. Again.

 

[martybegan]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

So when oppression you agree with comes from the SC, its OK then, right?

 

[BlindBoo]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

The Supreme court doesnt pass acts.
You fail. Again.

Notice the "Act" was not in the bold part?

Figures..........

 

[BlindBoo]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

So when oppression you agree with comes from the SC, its OK then, right?

I don't believe that Christians should legally be oppressing or discriminating against gay couples in the public arena. Yes I believe it will take a SC ruling to force some states to stop allowing that form of oppression/discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

So when oppression you agree with comes from the SC, its OK then, right?

I don't believe that Christians should legally be oppressing or discriminating against gay couples in the public arena. Yes I believe it will take a SC ruling to force some states to stop allowing that form of oppression/discrimination.

But its OK to oppress Christians? Despite the constitutional right to free exercise of Religion?

and how is having to go to another baker or photographer "oppression"?
Its more oppressive than saying a person has to submit to the state or lose their ability to make a living?

 

[bodecea]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

So when oppression you agree with comes from the SC, its OK then, right?

I don't believe that Christians should legally be oppressing or discriminating against gay couples in the public arena. Yes I believe it will take a SC ruling to force some states to stop allowing that form of oppression/discrimination.

But its OK to oppress Christians? Despite the constitutional right to free exercise of Religion?

and how is having to go to another baker or photographer "oppression"?
Its more oppressive than saying a person has to submit to the state or lose their ability to make a living?

Anyone "oppressing" Christians? What businesses are not serving Christians? They would have to put up a sign too.

 

[BULLDOG]

My home state doing it right, well done Indiana, well done

Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill 63-31

INDIANAPOLIS -The debate over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is now over. The Indiana House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed the bill in a 63-31 vote Monday afternoon.

It now goes back to the Senate to make sure everybody agrees with some changes. Then it heads to the governor's desk for his signature.

Governor Mike Pence says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law, but not everyone is happy about that.

Indiana House passes religious freedom bill 63-31 - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Bummer. Gonna suck when it's struck down as unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution force a person to bake a cake they don't want to bake? Isn't that involuntary servitude?

NO

 

[martybegan]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

So when oppression you agree with comes from the SC, its OK then, right?

I don't believe that Christians should legally be oppressing or discriminating against gay couples in the public arena. Yes I believe it will take a SC ruling to force some states to stop allowing that form of oppression/discrimination.

But its OK to oppress Christians? Despite the constitutional right to free exercise of Religion?

and how is having to go to another baker or photographer "oppression"?
Its more oppressive than saying a person has to submit to the state or lose their ability to make a living?

Anyone "oppressing" Christians? What businesses are not serving Christians? They would have to put up a sign too.

Simple question. Do you see government forcing of a person to provide a service against their beliefs as oppression or not?

If the government forced you to do something you don't want to do are you not oppressed by them?

 

[BULLDOG]

My home state doing it right, well done Indiana, well done

Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill 63-31

INDIANAPOLIS -The debate over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is now over. The Indiana House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed the bill in a 63-31 vote Monday afternoon.

It now goes back to the Senate to make sure everybody agrees with some changes. Then it heads to the governor's desk for his signature.

Governor Mike Pence says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law, but not everyone is happy about that.

Indiana House passes religious freedom bill 63-31 - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Bummer. Gonna suck when it's struck down as unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution force a person to bake a cake they don't want to bake? Isn't that involuntary servitude?

It's the Equal Accomodation laws. You know, those things you can't stand but I swore to uphold.

Should have never targeted Christians...now you have the blow back, stupid people

You really don't think it is over do you?

 

[martybegan]

My home state doing it right, well done Indiana, well done

Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill 63-31

INDIANAPOLIS -The debate over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is now over. The Indiana House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed the bill in a 63-31 vote Monday afternoon.

It now goes back to the Senate to make sure everybody agrees with some changes. Then it heads to the governor's desk for his signature.

Governor Mike Pence says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law, but not everyone is happy about that.

Indiana House passes religious freedom bill 63-31 - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Bummer. Gonna suck when it's struck down as unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution force a person to bake a cake they don't want to bake? Isn't that involuntary servitude?

NO

Ah, the " it's not wrong because its fucking over people I don't like" retort.

Nothing but a cowardly bully, letting government push people around instead of having the balls to do it yourself.

Pussy.

 

[The Rabbi]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

The Supreme court doesnt pass acts.
You fail. Again.

Notice the "Act" was not in the bold part?

Figures..........

Hair splitting. The last refuge of the brain dead.

 

[BlindBoo]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

So when oppression you agree with comes from the SC, its OK then, right?

I don't believe that Christians should legally be oppressing or discriminating against gay couples in the public arena. Yes I believe it will take a SC ruling to force some states to stop allowing that form of oppression/discrimination.

But its OK to oppress Christians? Despite the constitutional right to free exercise of Religion?

and how is having to go to another baker or photographer "oppression"?
Its more oppressive than saying a person has to submit to the state or lose their ability to make a living?

Conducting business in the public arena is not oppression.

 

[The Rabbi]

How about we call it "We dont give a shit what you think you'll do it our way Act"?

That verbage is reserved for the SC ruling

So when oppression you agree with comes from the SC, its OK then, right?

I don't believe that Christians should legally be oppressing or discriminating against gay couples in the public arena. Yes I believe it will take a SC ruling to force some states to stop allowing that form of oppression/discrimination.

But it's OK for gays to oppress Christians. Right?