Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[Moonglow]

Republicans are so dishonest. Why don't they just come out and say they hate gays and want them dead? Be who you are. People will respect you a lot more if you publicly follow your convictions.

gop wants gays dead - Google Search

Religious people are so used to hiding behind veils of obscurity...

Leftists are so used to living in a haze of ignorance.

The Bible is not exactly a piece of non-fiction literature...

 

[paulitician]

The Communists/Democrats declared war on Christians and Religious Freedom a long time ago. This law is the end-result of those many years of persecution. The Communists forced their hand. People of faith have no choice but to fight back. So look for more States to follow suit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why does the OP ignore the answer to his question.

It's the tactic perfected by PoliticalChic. It's the old RWnut tactic based on the premise that you can't prove me wrong unless you get me to admit I'm wrong.

 

[paulitician]

This is the aftermath of the couple who refused to do the wedding cake for a gay marriage. They refused based on their religious beliefs. They were subsequently brutally attacked and sued. They lost everything.

We are a nation that respects religious freedoms. That case should have never been allowed to happen. And this law is a response to that incident.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not one of Bill Clinton's better signings, that's for sure, but this law goes even further.

Perhaps you should stop being disingenuous. Go look at Connecticut's RFRA law. It is even stronger than Indiana's. You liberals are bent on blowing this law out of context, when in fact there are 20 other laws out there just like it.

The other problem is that this law comes at a time where a majority of our society now accepts the LGBT community.

So? Where is your outrage concerning the others? Hmm? Why aren't you boycotting the rest of these states? I have asked these questions a thousand times (hyperbole I know). But I get deflections like this one.

There is ZERO difference between Indiana's law and the Federal RFRA. My OP is definitive proof of such. I've already caught people trying to claim Section 9 somehow allows businesses to discriminate against gays. But when compared with the Federal statute, no such implication exists.

I'm happy for Pence on this one. He's just done the Democrats a great service as we enter the general election cycle in the coming months.

Sorry that has to be offset by Hillary's ever burgeoning email scandal. Oh, did I mention she committed a felony?

Nothing gets people more eager to vote against Republicans in presidential elections than watching vast right-wing government overreach in action.

Oh, as if you wouldn't know anything about "government overreach."

Government overreach, the thing they accuse of liberals ends up being the thing that brings the GOP down.

Do people like you even take off your tin hats? At all? If I recall, "government overreach" got your asses spanked in the election last year. Don't be hypocritical.

The irony is delicious.

Very delicious, just like my twinkies. Your tears are but sweet wine.

There are significant differences between the Indiana and federal law. They have been pointed out to your repeatedly.

Stop lying. It's over.

See what I mean about these 'nuts?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If the law didn't permit discrimination, there'd be no need to 'clear it up.'

 

[Scorpion]

Why is it that believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman (based on ones religious convictions) be considered hate?
It's a difference of opinion and has nothing to do with hate.

 

[zeke]

The Communists/Democrats declared war on Christians and Religious Freedom a long time ago.

Your belief that religious persecution is practiced against today's Christians in America is weird. Have any been fed to the loins yet? Let us know when that happens.

 

[Jarhead]

If the law didn't permit discrimination, there'd be no need to 'clear it up.'

You are completely wrong.

The way it is written does not permit discrimination. It may open the door to discrimination if one opts to use it as such, but the law itself will stand and that person will be found guilty of discrimination. The extra language is nothing more than a means to clear up the intentional misunderstanding of those that wish to discredit a popular conservative Governor.

The extra wording will not change anything about the law. If one wants to use the religious freedom defense, they will use it no matter what the language says. Whether that defense would hold up all depends on whether or not one was intentionally discriminating based on personal decision...and not religious freedom.

I cant stand those that spew crap about a law they are clueless about.

READ THE FUCKING LAW.

 

[Jarhead]

Why is it that believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman (based on ones religious convictions) be considered hate?
It's a difference of opinion and has nothing to do with hate.

It has to do with the fact that those that support gay marriage HATE those that don't.

I support gay marriage...but this most recent rant by supporters of gay marriage is quite transparent. They want to be treated differently, contrary to what they say...and they use their "cause" to fight against ANY conservative politician..

They should be ashamed of themselves. It is not about their cause...it is about politics.

 

[Ravi]

Why does the OP ignore the answer to his question.

It's the tactic perfected by PoliticalChic. It's the old RWnut tactic based on the premise that you can't prove me wrong unless you get me to admit I'm wrong.

That explains a lot. I've noticed that right wingers will post the same false information repeatedly.

 

[zeke]

Why is it that believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman (based on ones religious convictions) be considered hate?
It's a difference of opinion and has nothing to do with hate.

I might believe you if gays were afforded the same opportunities to marry that straights are. But they are not.
No one is asking that Christians or anyone else that believes marriage is only between a man and a woman give up their beliefs. You can believe what ever you want.

You just can't hate that someone else has a different belief and then try and use the government as the instrument of imposing your beliefs. Because what it is you are believing is discriminatory. And you are asking to use the government to validate your beliefs by allowing you to discriminate against others who don't share your same belief. That won't work.

 

[paulitician]

The Communists/Democrats declared war on Christians and Religious Freedom a long time ago.

Your belief that religious persecution is practiced against today's Christians in America is weird. Have any been fed to the loins yet? Let us know when that happens.

The Communists/Democrats have been viciously attacking Christians and Religious Freedoms for years. It's a favorite pastime of theirs. So it's no surprise people are standing up and fighting back.

We have to respect all Citizens' rights. Not just Gay Citizens' Rights. If a business owner doesn't wanna make a wedding cake for a gay wedding because it goes against their religious beliefs, than so be it. Go get your wedding cake made elsewhere.

 

[Ravi]

This is the aftermath of the couple who refused to do the wedding cake for a gay marriage. They refused based on their religious beliefs. They were subsequently brutally attacked and sued. They lost everything.

We are a nation that respects religious freedoms. That case should have never been allowed to happen. And this law is a response to that incident.

^another example of ridiculous lies being repeated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the aftermath of the couple who refused to do the wedding cake for a gay marriage. They refused based on their religious beliefs. They were subsequently brutally attacked and sued. They lost everything.

We are a nation that respects religious freedoms. That case should have never been allowed to happen. And this law is a response to that incident.

Wrong. Those homophobic bakers lost because the gay couple had state law on their side.

One would think a so-called states rights guy like yourself would appreciate that fact.

 

[paulitician]

This is the aftermath of the couple who refused to do the wedding cake for a gay marriage. They refused based on their religious beliefs. They were subsequently brutally attacked and sued. They lost everything.

We are a nation that respects religious freedoms. That case should have never been allowed to happen. And this law is a response to that incident.

^another example of ridiculous lies being repeated.

They were brutally attacked and did lose everything. We have to respect all Citizens' rights. Even when we don't agree with particular stances. This law is an inevitable end-result of many years of persecution against people of faith.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the question for the OP, or anyone for that matter:

Does the Indiana law allow a Catholic hospital

1. to refuse to treat homosexuals?

2. to refuse to hire homosexuals?

If so, why. If not why not.

 

[paulitician]

This is the aftermath of the couple who refused to do the wedding cake for a gay marriage. They refused based on their religious beliefs. They were subsequently brutally attacked and sued. They lost everything.

We are a nation that respects religious freedoms. That case should have never been allowed to happen. And this law is a response to that incident.

Wrong. Those homophobic bakers lost because the gay couple had state law on their side.

One would think a so-called states rights guy like yourself would appreciate that fact.

This is a response to that injustice. We have to respect all citizens' rights. Not just gay citizens' rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the aftermath of the couple who refused to do the wedding cake for a gay marriage. They refused based on their religious beliefs. They were subsequently brutally attacked and sued. They lost everything.

We are a nation that respects religious freedoms. That case should have never been allowed to happen. And this law is a response to that incident.

^another example of ridiculous lies being repeated.

They were brutally attacked and did lose everything. We have to respect all Citizens' rights. Even when we don't agree with particular stances. This law is an inevitable end-result of many years of persecution against people of faith.

They lost a court case, fair and square. They lost business due to market forces, fair and square.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the aftermath of the couple who refused to do the wedding cake for a gay marriage. They refused based on their religious beliefs. They were subsequently brutally attacked and sued. They lost everything.

We are a nation that respects religious freedoms. That case should have never been allowed to happen. And this law is a response to that incident.

Wrong. Those homophobic bakers lost because the gay couple had state law on their side.

One would think a so-called states rights guy like yourself would appreciate that fact.

This is a response to that injustice. We have to respect all citizens' rights. Not just gay citizens' rights.

You don't get to break anti-discrimination laws just because you claim God told you it was your duty.