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

[LittleNipper]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

No one is preventing a gay couple from buying a cake. The baker would be protected against a lawsuit for not decorating the cake that in anyway celebrates Homosexual union if that baker doesn't wish to. That is his prerogative --- his right. It is the right of a person who is a homosexual to not patronize businesses he rather not. I have a right to not use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals. I find that the Flintstones were having a gay old time and it didn't involve sex.

I find the misuse of the word "gay" offensive. The Flintstones where having a gay old time and no one then associated it with Barney & Fred's sexual agenda. Should as law be past restricting the use of words. Get over it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

No one is preventing a gay couple from buying a cake. The baker would be protected against a lawsuit for not decorating the cake that in anyway celebrates Homosexual union if that baker doesn't wish to. That is his prerogative --- his right. It is the right of a person who is a homosexual to not patronize businesses he rather not. I have a right to not use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals. I find that the Flintstones were having a gay old time and it didn't involve sex.

It doesn't protect them it gives them a defense. The problem is if they are using the defense they have already discriminated. Why would anyone pass a law that provides a pathway to legal discrimination?
Protection from a lawsuit is legalized discrimination. No?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

No one is preventing a gay couple from buying a cake. The baker would be protected against a lawsuit for not decorating the cake that in anyway celebrates Homosexual union if that baker doesn't wish to. That is his prerogative --- his right. It is the right of a person who is a homosexual to not patronize businesses he rather not. I have a right to not use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals. I find that the Flintstones were having a gay old time and it didn't involve sex.

I find the misuse of the word "gay" offensive. The Flintstones where having a gay old time and no one then associated it with Barney & Fred's sexual agenda. Should as law be past restricting the use of words. Get over it.

That is so far from the truth that it is over the horizon.

 

[The Rabbi]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

No one is preventing a gay couple from buying a cake. The baker would be protected against a lawsuit for not decorating the cake that in anyway celebrates Homosexual union if that baker doesn't wish to. That is his prerogative --- his right. It is the right of a person who is a homosexual to not patronize businesses he rather not. I have a right to not use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals. I find that the Flintstones were having a gay old time and it didn't involve sex.

I find the misuse of the word "gay" offensive. The Flintstones where having a gay old time and no one then associated it with Barney & Fred's sexual agenda. Should as law be past restricting the use of words. Get over it.

That is so far from the truth that it is over the horizon.

Leftists dont know truth.
He is right. Gay means happy. The homos perverted the word to mean homosexual. It is offensive to use perfectly good words in ways they were never intended to be used.

 

[BlackSand]

Oh sure.....we know that gays have been busy at work trying to come up with legislation that they can use to discriminate against Christians. Deflection is easy to spot.....try again.

You don't get to decide whether or not an act is discrimination on whether or not you agree with it.
The fact you consider my comments a deflection is a spotlight on your discrimination.

I don't have to try anything again when you simply confirmed my observations.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

No one is preventing a gay couple from buying a cake. The baker would be protected against a lawsuit for not decorating the cake that in anyway celebrates Homosexual union if that baker doesn't wish to. That is his prerogative --- his right. It is the right of a person who is a homosexual to not patronize businesses he rather not. I have a right to not use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals. I find that the Flintstones were having a gay old time and it didn't involve sex.

I find the misuse of the word "gay" offensive. The Flintstones where having a gay old time and no one then associated it with Barney & Fred's sexual agenda. Should as law be past restricting the use of words. Get over it.

That is so far from the truth that it is over the horizon.

Leftists dont know truth.
He is right. Gay means happy. The homos perverted the word to mean homosexual. It is offensive to use perfectly good words in ways they were never intended to be used.

Nice drive-by dog shit bomb.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

 

[The Rabbi]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

More of your baseless rambling.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

No one is preventing a gay couple from buying a cake. The baker would be protected against a lawsuit for not decorating the cake that in anyway celebrates Homosexual union if that baker doesn't wish to. That is his prerogative --- his right. It is the right of a person who is a homosexual to not patronize businesses he rather not. I have a right to not use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals. I find that the Flintstones were having a gay old time and it didn't involve sex.

I find the misuse of the word "gay" offensive. The Flintstones where having a gay old time and no one then associated it with Barney & Fred's sexual agenda. Should as law be past restricting the use of words. Get over it.

That is so far from the truth that it is over the horizon.

Leftists dont know truth.
He is right. Gay means happy. The homos perverted the word to mean homosexual. It is offensive to use perfectly good words in ways they were never intended to be used.

When did the term the Rabbi get perverted to mean retard?

 

[The Rabbi]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

More of your baseless rambling.

Translation: I can't HEAR you.....
None is so blind as who will not see.

 

[The Rabbi]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

No one is preventing a gay couple from buying a cake. The baker would be protected against a lawsuit for not decorating the cake that in anyway celebrates Homosexual union if that baker doesn't wish to. That is his prerogative --- his right. It is the right of a person who is a homosexual to not patronize businesses he rather not. I have a right to not use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals. I find that the Flintstones were having a gay old time and it didn't involve sex.

I find the misuse of the word "gay" offensive. The Flintstones where having a gay old time and no one then associated it with Barney & Fred's sexual agenda. Should as law be past restricting the use of words. Get over it.

That is so far from the truth that it is over the horizon.

Leftists dont know truth.
He is right. Gay means happy. The homos perverted the word to mean homosexual. It is offensive to use perfectly good words in ways they were never intended to be used.

When did the term the Rabbi get perverted to mean retard?

You are a moron. You get stupider every day you post here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

More of your baseless rambling.

Translation: I can't HEAR you.....
None is so blind as who will not see.

There is nothing in your post that makes a cogent argument that I have posted a fallacy.

Can you hear THAT?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

No one is preventing a gay couple from buying a cake. The baker would be protected against a lawsuit for not decorating the cake that in anyway celebrates Homosexual union if that baker doesn't wish to. That is his prerogative --- his right. It is the right of a person who is a homosexual to not patronize businesses he rather not. I have a right to not use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals. I find that the Flintstones were having a gay old time and it didn't involve sex.

I find the misuse of the word "gay" offensive. The Flintstones where having a gay old time and no one then associated it with Barney & Fred's sexual agenda. Should as law be past restricting the use of words. Get over it.

That is so far from the truth that it is over the horizon.

Leftists dont know truth.
He is right. Gay means happy. The homos perverted the word to mean homosexual. It is offensive to use perfectly good words in ways they were never intended to be used.

When did the term the Rabbi get perverted to mean retard?

You are a moron. You get stupider every day you post here.

Ouch. Gotcha. Squeal, little man. And then get back on topic. What the fallacy of my post earlier?

 

[g5000]

So...yeah. Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana law.

The bigots want to be able to serve cake to a straight who is getting married for the third time but not to a newlywed gay couple, because they think its gays who are ruining marriage.

It just doesn't get more hypocritical or stupid as that.

This isn't about religious freedom. Religion has nothing to do with it. This is about the freedom to be a hateful sanctimonious retard. Just like their KKK political ancestors.

Using God as a pretense for being a bigot is as evil as it gets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Probably because this law would allow someone to post their "No Darkies" sign and defend it court not by saying they are racist in business, that's illegal, but because Darkies are spawns of the Devil, and get away with it. They don't even have to have a faith that says that, they simply have to believe it. A tweet would be enough, and they don't even need that much.

 

[The Rabbi]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

He has no idea what the law means or what it would do.

I've asked these people repeatedly to give us an example of how this law would work and they respond with stunned silence or some lame deflection.

Actually we have responded with facts and situations. You simply ignore them since they are inconvenient.
As to Hutch, every law comes into effect after the fact. What is your point here?

 

[Jarhead]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.