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

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, I would just loooove for someone to try to tell me how the law discriminates, I'm begging anyone to try.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What I posted is 100% accurate. I read the law. Completely. And I discussed the law with a NY State judge who is my brother in law. The law allows one to defend himself/herself in a court of law if he/she is accused of discrimination...using religious freedom as the defense. One must be able to prove that it was an infringement on ones religious freedom.

It DOES NOT allow for discrimination. It allows for a defense....and that defense must be proven.

READ THE LAW

It also puts the burden of proof in such a case on the government to show a) that there is a compelling overriding interest on the part of the state, and b) that they have used the least intrusive means of resolving that compelling interest with respect to the person's religious beliefs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

What I posted is 100% accurate. I read the law. Completely. And I discussed the law with a NY State judge who is my brother in law. The law allows one to defend himself/herself in a court of law if he/she is accused of discrimination...using religious freedom as the defense. One must be able to prove that it was an infringement on ones religious freedom.

It DOES NOT allow for discrimination. It allows for a defense....and that defense must be proven.

READ THE LAW

It also puts the burden of proof in such a case on the government to show a) that there is a compelling overriding interest on the part of the state, and b) that they have used the least intrusive means of resolving that compelling interest with respect to the person's religious beliefs.

An exact replica of the law Clinton signed, word for word. I compared the two laws at least 5 times before posting this thread yesterday, yet some people's ignorance has gone on for 43 pages yelling "discrimination!" or "this isn't the same law that Clinton signed" or "read section 9! That gives businesses the right to discriminate!"

The asininity makes my brain cry.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what the law says or what it actually does.

Obviously you don't either. Looks like Pence doesn't either. He was caught looking pretty dumb when questioned by Stephanopoulos.

Gov. Pence of Indiana Can t Answer a Yes or No Question Allegiance

Uh huh. Coming from you, that means less than the contents of my cat's litter box.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Mormons lost A LOT of religious freedom when polygamy was outlawed.

Why don't you constitutionalist conservatives object to that?

They have liberals doing that for them right now.
But your deflection in the face of losing the argument is noted.

What's your position? Is polygamy a religious right or not?

And polygamy has what to do with this thread?

 

[Jarhead]

It is very sad new laws like this are necessary. But the Communists/Democrats did declare war on Christians. They've been waging it for years. Christians and people of faith have no choice but to fight back. Religious persecution is Un-American. Simple as that.

It's not "Christians" that are making these laws. True Christians would not look for ways to make less of others. It's pseudo christians that are coming up with these laws that do nothing but spew hatred and allow them under the law to discriminate people based on something that doesn't affect them.

I see you have not read the law....

This law is designed to allow a religious defense if someone wants to take someone else to court for discrimination.

This law is not for anyone or against anyone.

I'm actually looking fowards to this law. I'd love to see what happens when some cult sets up shop there and starts exerting their religious freedom

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.

What I posted is 100% accurate. I read the law. Completely. And I discussed the law with a NY State judge who is my brother in law. The law allows one to defend himself/herself in a court of law if he/she is accused of discrimination...using religious freedom as the defense. One must be able to prove that it was an infringement on ones religious freedom.

It DOES NOT allow for discrimination. It allows for a defense....and that defense must be proven.

READ THE LAW

It also puts the burden of proof in such a case on the government to show a) that there is a compelling overriding interest on the part of the state, and b) that they have used the least intrusive means of resolving that compelling interest with respect to the person's religious beliefs.

An exact replica of the law Clinton signed, word for word. I compared the two laws at least 5 times before posting this thread yesterday, yet some people's ignorance has gone on for 43 pages yelling "discrimination!" or "this isn't the same law that Clinton signed" or "read section 9! That gives businesses the right to discriminate!"

The asininity makes my brain cry.

this was an obvious attempt by the left to discredit Pense as a viable conservative presidential candidate. They knew that most on the left will not read the law so they played on their emotions to create the uproar.

If anyone on the left read the law with an open mind, they would likely say "what the fuck are they talking about. There is no discrimination in this law"

But true to form, they did not read it.

 

[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.

What I posted is 100% accurate. I read the law. Completely. And I discussed the law with a NY State judge who is my brother in law. The law allows one to defend himself/herself in a court of law if he/she is accused of discrimination...using religious freedom as the defense. One must be able to prove that it was an infringement on ones religious freedom.

It DOES NOT allow for discrimination. It allows for a defense....and that defense must be proven.

READ THE LAW

It also puts the burden of proof in such a case on the government to show a) that there is a compelling overriding interest on the part of the state, and b) that they have used the least intrusive means of resolving that compelling interest with respect to the person's religious beliefs.

An exact replica of the law Clinton signed, word for word. I compared the two laws at least 5 times before posting this thread yesterday, yet some people's ignorance has gone on for 43 pages yelling "discrimination!" or "this isn't the same law that Clinton signed" or "read section 9! That gives businesses the right to discriminate!"

The asininity makes my brain cry.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

 

[Jarhead]

Oh, I would just loooove for someone to try to tell me how the law discriminates, I'm begging anyone to try.

I have asked many the same question.....and they cant answer it.

But Maddow and Sharpton say it is a license for discrimination.....so it must be true.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

What I posted is 100% accurate. I read the law. Completely. And I discussed the law with a NY State judge who is my brother in law. The law allows one to defend himself/herself in a court of law if he/she is accused of discrimination...using religious freedom as the defense. One must be able to prove that it was an infringement on ones religious freedom.

It DOES NOT allow for discrimination. It allows for a defense....and that defense must be proven.

READ THE LAW

It also puts the burden of proof in such a case on the government to show a) that there is a compelling overriding interest on the part of the state, and b) that they have used the least intrusive means of resolving that compelling interest with respect to the person's religious beliefs.

An exact replica of the law Clinton signed, word for word. I compared the two laws at least 5 times before posting this thread yesterday, yet some people's ignorance has gone on for 43 pages yelling "discrimination!" or "this isn't the same law that Clinton signed" or "read section 9! That gives businesses the right to discriminate!"

The asininity makes my brain cry.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

Point out what is a lie.

Bet you cant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However, the language isn’t the “very same,” and the claim is not as simple as lining up one vote next to the other and declaring them equal, experts told us.

Doesn't matter if the language "wasn't the same" he still voted for an RFRA, same as Pence did. That makes him, and you, a hypocrite.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

What I posted is 100% accurate. I read the law. Completely. And I discussed the law with a NY State judge who is my brother in law. The law allows one to defend himself/herself in a court of law if he/she is accused of discrimination...using religious freedom as the defense. One must be able to prove that it was an infringement on ones religious freedom.

It DOES NOT allow for discrimination. It allows for a defense....and that defense must be proven.

READ THE LAW

It also puts the burden of proof in such a case on the government to show a) that there is a compelling overriding interest on the part of the state, and b) that they have used the least intrusive means of resolving that compelling interest with respect to the person's religious beliefs.

An exact replica of the law Clinton signed, word for word. I compared the two laws at least 5 times before posting this thread yesterday, yet some people's ignorance has gone on for 43 pages yelling "discrimination!" or "this isn't the same law that Clinton signed" or "read section 9! That gives businesses the right to discriminate!"

The asininity makes my brain cry.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

what in the law makes it a license to discriminate? If you are so sure, please ply tell us exactly what part of the law gives you concern.
Bet you don't!
Because you cant.
Because you did not read the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The question had nothing to do with gays.

Neither does the law have anything to do with gays, even if Pence posed with a group of nuns doesn't belie any ulterior motive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

We're not the ones that watch FAUX News 24/7..........

"Squawk squawk squawk! Faux News! Talking points! Squawk! Polly want a cracker!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

We're not the ones that watch FAUX News 24/7..........

"Squawk squawk squawk! Faux News! Talking points! Squawk! Polly want a cracker!"

I'm sorry, I can't serve Polly her cracker because it violates my religious beliefs!

(couldn't resist!)

 

[Jarhead]

The question had nothing to do with gays.

Neither does the law have anything to do with gays, even if Pence posed with a group of nuns doesn't belie any ulterior motive.

you are wasting your time.

They do not wish to know the truth. The truth does not support their narrative.

If they wanted to know the truth, they would have read the law.

Notice how when you ask what in the law concerns them, they disappear?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

We're not the ones that watch FAUX News 24/7..........

"Squawk squawk squawk! Faux News! Talking points! Squawk! Polly want a cracker!"

ah yes...when all else fails, bring up fox news. Gotta laugh at the consistency of their tactics.

First they state their case
Then they are proven wrong.
So then they claim you are a liar
So then you ask what you lied about.
And they then bring up fox news.

 

[daws101]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

try watching the news, the odd thing is I saw it on fox..

 

[TemplarKormac]

In all of the history of these RFRA's none of them have been used to justify discrimination against gays. None. I suggest you arm yourself against the informed attribute, and read this article by Gabriel Malor:

Your Questions On Indiana s Religious Freedom Bill Answered

 

[Jarhead]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

try watching the news, the odd thing is I saw it on fox..

and there you go. Fox news.

OK...now it is your turn...

Show me you read the bill. What in the law gives reason to consider it a license to discriminate.

Go ahead....

 

[koshergrl]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

try watching the news, the odd thing is I saw it on fox..

So you can't name who made the reports, or how the information was substantiated.

Typical low information, lying hack.