Indiana Law No Different Than Clinton's in 1993!

[BullKurtz]

The only thing that's changed is the hypocrisy of the left and their TERROR at offending perverts. I know most of the progs here have the attention-span of a hummingbird so they'll never watch this in it's entirety. This from the master of sleaze, the man from Hot Springs....er...Hope.

 

[emilynghiem]

The only thing that's changed is the hypocrisy of the left and their TERROR at offending perverts. I know most of the progs here have the attention-span of a hummingbird so they'll never watch this in it's entirety. This from the master of sleaze, the man from Hot Springs....er...Hope.

Dear BullKurtz
Please see Delta4Embassy 's thread on this that makes a good point.
Why Indiana s RFRA law isn t like other states US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
It's not just govt that can't take action against the business, it's individual citizens who can't.

You sound like liberals who say the ACA mandates are "no different" from
* state required car insurance
* people already paying for hospitals anyway, or already needing to buy insurance anyway
WRONG the ACA is about FEDERAL GOVT having authority to require, regulate and penalize those choices!

so it IS different!

Striking how one side can see the difference in the Indiana law but not in the federal ACA mandates.
The other side yells about the abuse of authority in the federal health care mandates, but don't see it here.

I would have said "funny" how that happens, but this is no longer funny.
We need a SERIOUS Constitutional convention and agreement on this
issue, about how to deal with personal political beliefs that can't be separated from govt.

How many more cases have to cross the line, between people's beliefs and public policy,
before we finally see the recurring pattern? And see that both sides take turns violating each other's beliefs? Am I the only one who sees this is the same theme, over and over?

 

[TheOldSchool]

The only thing that's changed is the hypocrisy of the left and their TERROR at offending perverts. I know most of the progs here have the attention-span of a hummingbird so they'll never watch this in it's entirety. This from the master of sleaze, the man from Hot Springs....er...Hope.

You're an idiot.

 

[BullKurtz]

You're an idiot.

You're a fag....I can get smarter but according to your kind, you can't turn straight.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You're an idiot.

You're a fag....I can smarter but according to your kind, you can't turn straight.

Yeah "you can smarter." Please try to do that.

 

[BullKurtz]

You're a fag....I can smarter but according to your kind, you can't turn straight.

Yeah "you can smarter." Please try to do that.

So you admit that you're a fag.....see how this works?

 

[TheOldSchool]

You're a fag....I can smarter but according to your kind, you can't turn straight.

Yeah "you can smarter." Please try to do that.

So you admit that you're a fag.....see how this works?

I thought you could smarter. Oh well.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The only thing that's changed is the hypocrisy of the left and their TERROR at offending perverts. I know most of the progs here have the attention-span of a hummingbird so they'll never watch this in it's entirety. This from the master of sleaze, the man from Hot Springs....er...Hope.

Are two differences in fact, both significant.

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation The Atlantic

"... first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down...."

 

[tigerred59]

The only thing that's changed is the hypocrisy of the left and their TERROR at offending perverts. I know most of the progs here have the attention-span of a hummingbird so they'll never watch this in it's entirety. This from the master of sleaze, the man from Hot Springs....er...Hope.

AND? It still doesn't make it right, does it?

 

[BullKurtz]

Are two differences in fact, both significant.

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation The Atlantic

"... first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down...."

I see you didn't listen to my Clinton video....it's the official word on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.....spend 16 minutes on it and you'll see they are the same thing.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If you repeat what you know to be a lie you're a cheap hack.

 

[BullKurtz]

I thought you could smarter. Oh well.

Note my correction...

 

[tigerred59]

Are two differences in fact, both significant.

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation The Atlantic

"... first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down...."

I see you didn't listen to my Clinton video....it's the official word on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.....spend 16 minutes on it and you'll see they are the same thing.

They are not the same, one gives broad religious freedom rights, the other specifically targets gays...you view it and then Pence's bill....apple and oranges, pal

 

[BullKurtz]

If you repeat what you know to be a lie you're a cheap hack.

So you're accusing me of Harry Reiding you?

 

[BullKurtz]

They are not the same, one gives broad religious freedom rights, the other specifically targets gays...you view it and then Pence's bill....apple and oranges, pal

I ain't your "pal" homo....and nothing in the Indiana bill "targets gays"...you're a liar.

 

[BullKurtz]

AND? It still doesn't make it right, does it?

Hell yes it's right....running a business doesn't deprive me of MY religious freedom. If you act like a freakin queer in my store, I'll throw you out.

 

[tigerred59]

AND? It still doesn't make it right, does it?

Hell yes it's right....running a business doesn't deprive me of MY religious freedom. If you act like a freakin queer in my store, I'll throw you out.

Good luck defending that bs, pal.....cause I wouldn't want to partronize you or your damned store and if I ever go into any damned store or venue that got issues with gays or minorities, you don't get my hard earned effin dollars, so bye!!

 

[tigerred59]

They are not the same, one gives broad religious freedom rights, the other specifically targets gays...you view it and then Pence's bill....apple and oranges, pal

I ain't your "pal" homo....and nothing in the Indiana bill "targets gays"...you're a liar.

Yes it does and a check this, I was being nice and I took away all the stuff I wanted to say, because I don't want to get banned, but I'm warning you nuts, I can get pretty dirty here, so please, lets be cordial, shall we

 

[BullKurtz]

Yes it does and a check this, I was being nice and I took away all the stuff I wanted to say, because I don't want to get banned, but I'm warning you nuts, I can get pretty dirty here, so please, lets be cordial, shall we

Fuck that and fuck you.....you think you can whip me in a pissing match son, you better grow a bigger dick.

 

[tigerred59]

Yes it does and a check this, I was being nice and I took away all the stuff I wanted to say, because I don't want to get banned, but I'm warning you nuts, I can get pretty dirty here, so please, lets be cordial, shall we

Fuck that and fuck you.....you think you can whip me in a pissing match son, you better grow a bigger dick.

Tell you what, I'll grow a dick for you, if you take the other 3 you got stuffed down your throat out, you diaper wearing shit for brains moron!!...cha ching!!