Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
Why should we submit to giving you a hypothetical case in regards to your hypothetical argument ... Neither actually exist?
.
they never left ,like all rights they end where they infringe on others rights.Because you dont respect religion. We get it.Um, who is pushing for policies that force bakers to bake cakes for clients they dont want? You don tthink this stuff out, do you?Yep and the RWs want more and more laws, bigger and bigger government and the more invasive, the better.
Not me.
I just think laws should apply equally across the board.
No special dispensation for fundie phobes.
So you support throwing American Indians in jail for using peyote, right?
I'm a religious person. I'm not a Christian. I do not believe religion should be used a basis for hate, discrimination and/or bigotry.
Okay, so where do the rights of the religious come in? Are there any rights at all?
If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.You've already been told a hundred times. Apparently you still can't read.
No, I haven't.
Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?
Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?
Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?
far too late in your case..You'll make their heads explode.Because you dont respect religion. We get it.
So you support throwing American Indians in jail for using peyote, right?
I'm a religious person. I'm not a Christian. I do not believe religion should be used a basis for hate, discrimination and/or bigotry.
Nor should the secular law be used to hate, discriminate against, and be bigoted towards religious people.
Nor should the secular law be used to hate, discriminate against, and be bigoted towards gays, Blacks, Jews, women, etc ...
Wouldn't you agree?
Riddle me this: does the desire to be Tolerated justify forcing others to do things against their will? And by do things, I mean engage in what are normally voluntary, law-abiding activities.
And further Riddle me this: where do one person's rights stop and another's begin?
See Hobby Lobby.If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.You've already been told a hundred times. Apparently you still can't read.
No, I haven't.
Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?
Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?
Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?
Right Wign Watch? Seriously? That's supposed to mean something?If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.No, I haven't.
Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?
Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?
Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?
The governor is now claiming it doesn't provide protection for ANY discrimination. He is lying of course.
Again, the supporters of the bill know exactly what it was intended to do:
Indiana Activist Don t Clarify That Religious Freedom Law Won t Allow Discrimination Right Wing Watch
Make up your mind, ya fool, are you asking about first amendment protections or civil right public access protections? The word "discrimination" is a broad term. For example, I reserve the right to discriminate what channel I want to watch. Does that make me an evil gay basher?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.You've already been told a hundred times. Apparently you still can't read.Then what does the law do? What is its purpose?
Be specific and give specific examples.
No, I haven't.
Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?
Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law.
The Indiana law makes it an affirmative defense to use your religious beliefs against someone accusing you of discrimination. That would include both of the above.
See Hobby Lobby.If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.No, I haven't.
Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?
Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?
Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?
Theres your answer right there.
Thats a clown question, bro.Make up your mind, ya fool, are you asking about first amendment protections or civil right public access protections? The word "discrimination" is a broad term. For example, I reserve the right to discriminate what channel I want to watch. Does that make me an evil gay basher?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.You've already been told a hundred times. Apparently you still can't read.
No, I haven't.
Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?
Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law.
The Indiana law makes it an affirmative defense to use your religious beliefs against someone accusing you of discrimination. That would include both of the above.
If you deny a black person a job and claim it's because your religion is against the mixing of the races,
whose rights get upheld?
It did no such thing.See Hobby Lobby.If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?
Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?
Theres your answer right there.
The Hobby Lobby decision legalized discrimination as a religious right.
My point is proven.
Thats a clown question, bro.Make up your mind, ya fool, are you asking about first amendment protections or civil right public access protections? The word "discrimination" is a broad term. For example, I reserve the right to discriminate what channel I want to watch. Does that make me an evil gay basher?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.No, I haven't.
Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?
Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law.
The Indiana law makes it an affirmative defense to use your religious beliefs against someone accusing you of discrimination. That would include both of the above.
If you deny a black person a job and claim it's because your religion is against the mixing of the races,
whose rights get upheld?
Because laws are normally passed to deal with situations that have not yet occurred.
You cannot cite a single situation that might occur in the future that this law would be applied to.
Why then do you support the law?
I know the answer. But you dont. And you never willl. Because in your tiny pea brain mind this is about discriminating against gays and nothing more.Thats a clown question, bro.Make up your mind, ya fool, are you asking about first amendment protections or civil right public access protections? The word "discrimination" is a broad term. For example, I reserve the right to discriminate what channel I want to watch. Does that make me an evil gay basher?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law.
The Indiana law makes it an affirmative defense to use your religious beliefs against someone accusing you of discrimination. That would include both of the above.
If you deny a black person a job and claim it's because your religion is against the mixing of the races,
whose rights get upheld?
You don't know the answer? Or you can't bear to tell us the answer?
It did no such thing.See Hobby Lobby.If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?
Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?
Theres your answer right there.
The Hobby Lobby decision legalized discrimination as a religious right.
My point is proven.
Next.
NY Carob is a tool. ANd not the sharpest one in the shed either.Because laws are normally passed to deal with situations that have not yet occurred.
You cannot cite a single situation that might occur in the future that this law would be applied to.
Why then do you support the law?
My support of the law or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether or not it favorably changes the situation to address concerns you have that are not expressed in the text of the law.
If you would like to see "sexual orientation" addressed as an anti-discrimination protected class in Indiana ... Your assaults and bickering regarding this law won't get you any closer. That is difference in doing something worthwhile ... And being a tool used by politicians who want to progress division politics. If you feel the need to volunteer as part of the tool group ... Then I see no reason to object.
.
Nope, it did no sucj thing. Name the group denied a legal right.It did no such thing.See Hobby Lobby.Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?
Theres your answer right there.
The Hobby Lobby decision legalized discrimination as a religious right.
My point is proven.
Next.
Sure it did. It singled out one group of people and denied them a legal right under the law that was otherwise available to everyone else.
The difference was that the employer was given the privilege of committing that discriminatory act because he claimed his religion wanted him to.
I know the answer. But you dont. And you never willl. Because in your tiny pea brain mind this is about discriminating against gays and nothing more.Thats a clown question, bro.Make up your mind, ya fool, are you asking about first amendment protections or civil right public access protections? The word "discrimination" is a broad term. For example, I reserve the right to discriminate what channel I want to watch. Does that make me an evil gay basher?The Indiana law makes it an affirmative defense to use your religious beliefs against someone accusing you of discrimination. That would include both of the above.
If you deny a black person a job and claim it's because your religion is against the mixing of the races,
whose rights get upheld?
You don't know the answer? Or you can't bear to tell us the answer?
no !really!If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.No, I haven't.
Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?
Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?
This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.
Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.
Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?
Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,
once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.
How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)
what is the need for the bill?
Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.
Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.
...and quit saying you've already done that...
What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?
The governor is now claiming it doesn't provide protection for ANY discrimination. He is lying of course.
Again, the supporters of the bill know exactly what it was intended to do:
Indiana Activist Don t Clarify That Religious Freedom Law Won t Allow Discrimination Right Wing Watch
You sound lke an idiot because you have no idea what's in the bill.I know the answer. But you dont. And you never willl. Because in your tiny pea brain mind this is about discriminating against gays and nothing more.Thats a clown question, bro.Make up your mind, ya fool, are you asking about first amendment protections or civil right public access protections? The word "discrimination" is a broad term. For example, I reserve the right to discriminate what channel I want to watch. Does that make me an evil gay basher?
If you deny a black person a job and claim it's because your religion is against the mixing of the races,
whose rights get upheld?
You don't know the answer? Or you can't bear to tell us the answer?
The question had nothing to do with gays. The question is about religious freedom. Can it be limited when it tries to infringe on the rights of others?
The answer is yes it can.
With that established as fact, all that's left is to decide where and when that infringement goes too far.
