NASCAR joins backlash over Indiana religious freedom law

[BullKurtz]

Not hard to believe NASCAR would weigh in on this since they're losing long-time fans by the tens of thousands and apparently are afraid of queer boycotts. I'd think the France family might want to focus on getting their broadcasts back on network TV and ditching their idiotic "chase" format. Jesse Jackson shook them down for a million bucks about 5 years ago and some faggot group has probably threatened to do the same. True Christians don't want to deal with queers....this will end up bloody sooner or later.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wow there is no where for the thumpers to run
NASCAR joins backlash over Indiana religious freedom law - Mar. 31 2015

Bill Clinton singed the same law into effect back in 1993.
Where were you mindless partisan bigots back then?

No he didn't. You should probably read the laws before saying something stupid next time.

As usual, you do not have any idea of what you're talking about, or you do and simply choose to lie.

This is a repost.

This is a repost
Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

Not obnoxious. Just illegal. I can't wait for the lawsuits.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bill Clinton singed the same law into effect back in 1993.
Where were you mindless partisan bigots back then?

No he didn't. You should probably read the laws before saying something stupid next time.

As usual, you do not have any idea of what you're talking about, or you do and simply choose to lie.

This is a repost.

This is a repost
Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

Not obnoxious. Just illegal. I can't wait for the lawsuits.

How is it illegal to protect a business owner rather than a patron?

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmm...Apple...really....the guys who actually use chinese slave labor to make their products.....really? And I am sure the government of China is very understanding of gays......let's have some fun and run all of these CEOs through the lefty anal exam...and see what happens.......

 

[Camp]

Businesses will be vary weary of setting up shop if they have to recruit people from out of state, educated people aren't and don't want to brig their families to that type of environment

That type of environment... Like the entire USA, which has the same -federal- law?

No it doesn't.

Explain, in detail, the objectionable difference between the federal law and the IN law.
Be sure to cite the text of the relevant laws.

theweek.com/articles/547127/how-indianas-religious-freedom-law-empowers-businesses-expense-everyday-americans
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indiana-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

You are behaving like a punky little brat. You got the explanations and links you requested. There is nothing anyone here can do about your lack of reading comprehension or immaturity. It's OK, there are still some folks here more immature and dumber than you.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a roundup of elected officials, business executives and companies -- from Indianapolis to Silicon Valley -- that have spoken out against such laws:
Starbucks: (SBUX) The coffee chain was the latest big name brand to publicly condemn the law on Monday.
"We join with others opposing any state or federal legislation that permits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and encourage policymakers everywhere to embrace equality," Starbucks said in a statement.
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy: Malloy took the unusual step Monday of signing an executive order forbidding state-funded travel to Indiana, saying his administration is "sending a message that discrimination won't be tolerated."
Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook: In an op-ed published Sunday, Cook said such laws are "very dangerous" and contrary to America's founding principles.
"On behalf of Apple, I'm standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation," wrote Cook, who came out as gay last year.
Angie's List (ANGI) CEO Bill Oesterle: The proposed campus expansion project in Indianapolis is "on hold" following the bill's passage.
Related: Brands that love LGBT the most
PayPal co-founder Max Levchin: Opposing the law is "a basic human decency issue," Levchin told CNN.
"I'm asking my fellow CEOs to look at how they're thinking about their relationship with the state and evaluate it in terms of the legislation that's getting signed into law," he said.
Yelp (YELP) CEO Jeremy Stoppelman: Yelp will "make every effort" to expand its corporate operations in states that do not have such laws on the books. "These laws set a terrible precedent that will likely harm the broader economic health of the states where they have been adopted."
Salesforce (CRM, Tech30) CEO Marc Benioff: The law is an "outrage," he said, and that his company will "dramatically reduce" its investments in Indiana.
Eli Lilly (LLY): "We certainly understand the implications this legislation has on our ability to attract and retain employees. Simply put, we believe discriminatory legislation is bad for Indiana and for business."
Eli Lilly employs more than 11,700 workers in Indiana, mostly in Indianapolis.
NBA, WNBA, Indiana Pacers and Indiana Fever: "The game of basketball is grounded in long established principles of inclusion and mutual respect. We will continue to ensure that all fans, players and employees feel welcome at all NBA and WNBA events in Indiana and elsewhere."
Related: Barilla goes from worst to first on gay rights
NCAA: "We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees."
Gen Con: The people that run the video game convention said the law would "factor into our decision making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years."
Gen Con brought 56,000 people to the state last year, according to CEO Adrian Swartout

The NBA....really....and let's look at spousal abuse, child neglect.......the NCAA........really....the way they treat athletes who get injured.....and cover up player sexual assault.....and child rape.....Penn state anyone......can't wait to see these assholes examined........

 

[M14 Shooter]

That type of environment... Like the entire USA, which has the same -federal- law?

No it doesn't.

Explain, in detail, the objectionable difference between the federal law and the IN law.
Be sure to cite the text of the relevant laws.

theweek.com/articles/547127/how-indianas-religious-freedom-law-empowers-businesses-expense-everyday-americans
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indiana-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

You are behaving like a punky little brat. You got the explanations and links you requested. There is nothing anyone here can do about your lack of reading comprehension or immaturity. It's OK, there are still some folks here more immature and dumber than you.

Still waiting for an answer:
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

 

[TheOldSchool]

No he didn't. You should probably read the laws before saying something stupid next time.

As usual, you do not have any idea of what you're talking about, or you do and simply choose to lie.

This is a repost.

This is a repost
Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

Not obnoxious. Just illegal. I can't wait for the lawsuits.

How is it illegal to protect a business owner rather than a patron?

If you really want that answer, look up the statements by Judge's in cases where discrimination has lost. Or just wait for the statement on the lawsuit that undoes this law.

 

[2aguy]

Yes......nascar can afford to offend religious people.......while embracing lefties who hate their sport........what a bunch of morons....good by nascar...attack your fans and you will lose......

 

[M14 Shooter]

As usual, you do not have any idea of what you're talking about, or you do and simply choose to lie.

This is a repost.

This is a repost
Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

Not obnoxious. Just illegal. I can't wait for the lawsuits.

How is it illegal to protect a business owner rather than a patron?

If you really want that answer, look up the statements by Judge's in cases where discrimination has lost. Or just wait for the statement on the lawsuit that undoes this law.

Translation:
You know you cannot describe how it violates the law to protect a business owner rather than a patron.
As such, you know you cannot explain why the IN law is so objectionable - but, like the good partisan bigot you are you simply follow the party line and proclaim your outrage.

 

[Camp]

No it doesn't.

Explain, in detail, the objectionable difference between the federal law and the IN law.
Be sure to cite the text of the relevant laws.

theweek.com/articles/547127/how-indianas-religious-freedom-law-empowers-businesses-expense-everyday-americans
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indiana-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

You are behaving like a punky little brat. You got the explanations and links you requested. There is nothing anyone here can do about your lack of reading comprehension or immaturity. It's OK, there are still some folks here more immature and dumber than you.

Still waiting for an answer:
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

The business owner does not have a constitutional right to open and operate a business outside of the control and regulation of the various jurisdictions tasked by law to regulate and control said business. A business operates with the permission of jurisdictional authority. The 14th Amendment is the constitutional right that Americans have to equal protection under the law. The businesses privilege to operate a commercial business does not supercede the citizens constitutional right to equal treatment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explain, in detail, the objectionable difference between the federal law and the IN law.
Be sure to cite the text of the relevant laws.

theweek.com/articles/547127/how-indianas-religious-freedom-law-empowers-businesses-expense-everyday-americans
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indiana-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

You are behaving like a punky little brat. You got the explanations and links you requested. There is nothing anyone here can do about your lack of reading comprehension or immaturity. It's OK, there are still some folks here more immature and dumber than you.

Still waiting for an answer:
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

The business owner does not have a constitutional right to open and operate a business outside of the control and regulation of the various jurisdictions tasked by law to regulate and control said business. A business operates with the permission of jurisdictional authority. The 14th Amendment is the constitutional right that Americans have to equal protection under the law. The businesses privilege to operate a commercial business does not supercede the citizens constitutional right to equal treatment.

Ah. So, the protection of rights of the business owner, under the 14th amendment, must be equal to those of the patron.

How does forcing the business owner to associate with those he has fundamental disagreements with afford that equal protection?

 

[BullKurtz]

This kind of shit is coming from a government that has placed radical leftist judges on benches for the past 6 years....Evangelicals and ultra righties might want to remember that the next time a presidential candidate doesn't seem conservative ENOUGH for them to bother voting. This is what you get when you turn away from the process. The left isn't letting up, in fact they're going full-throttle to destroy every traditional institution in the US. Don't bitch if you won't lift a goddamn finger to stop this lunacy.

 

[Asclepias]

Not hard to believe NASCAR would weigh in on this since they're losing long-time fans by the tens of thousands and apparently are afraid of queer boycotts. I'd think the France family might want to focus on getting their broadcasts back on network TV and ditching their idiotic "chase" format. Jesse Jackson shook them down for a million bucks about 5 years ago and some faggot group has probably threatened to do the same. True Christians don't want to deal with queers....this will end up bloody sooner or later.

No it wont end up bloody. Like most of your type you are nothing but talk.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This is a repost.

This is a repost
Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

Not obnoxious. Just illegal. I can't wait for the lawsuits.

How is it illegal to protect a business owner rather than a patron?

If you really want that answer, look up the statements by Judge's in cases where discrimination has lost. Or just wait for the statement on the lawsuit that undoes this law.

Translation:
You know you cannot describe how it violates the law to protect a business owner rather than a patron.
As such, you know you cannot explain why the IN law is so objectionable - but, like the good partisan bigot you are you simply follow the party line and proclaim your outrage.

There are many laws to protect patrons and owners. This law is about legalizing religious discrimination. Not about protecting anyone. Well, unless they want to practice bigotry of course.

Maybe you'll admit you're wrong when the law is overturned before the Indiana teatards collapse under pressure.

 

[BullKurtz]

The business owner does not have a constitutional right to open and operate a business outside of the control and regulation of the various jurisdictions tasked by law to regulate and control said business. A business operates with the permission of jurisdictional authority. The 14th Amendment is the constitutional right that Americans have to equal protection under the law. The businesses privilege to operate a commercial business does not supercede the citizens constitutional right to equal treatment.

STFU ya whimpering little pussy. Without commerce there IS no government to bully business around. And the 14th Amendment protects the individual businessman too. We have the right to serve who we please as long as we don't find their behavior offensive. It has nothing to do with race or gender. It's about behavior; that's what determines whether you get service or not. Why should a Christian baker provide his services to two men who's entire "lifestyle" revolves around anal sex? He doesn't have to in 22 states...states that passed similar standards at the REQUEST of the Clinton administration.

 

[Camp]

theweek.com/articles/547127/how-indianas-religious-freedom-law-empowers-businesses-expense-everyday-americans
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indiana-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

Chuckle.
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

You are behaving like a punky little brat. You got the explanations and links you requested. There is nothing anyone here can do about your lack of reading comprehension or immaturity. It's OK, there are still some folks here more immature and dumber than you.

Still waiting for an answer:
The complaint rests on the protection of the business owner rather than the patron?
How is that so obnoxious?

The business owner does not have a constitutional right to open and operate a business outside of the control and regulation of the various jurisdictions tasked by law to regulate and control said business. A business operates with the permission of jurisdictional authority. The 14th Amendment is the constitutional right that Americans have to equal protection under the law. The businesses privilege to operate a commercial business does not supercede the citizens constitutional right to equal treatment.

Ah. So, the protection of rights of the business owner, under the 14th amendment, must be equal to those of the patron.

How does fording the business owner to associate with those he has fundamental disagreements with afford that equal protection?

The business owner is not being forced to do anything. The business they have chosen and location for the business they have chosen is the businesses choice. They owners are aware of the laws and regulations governing a particular business when they enter into operating the business. They agree to follow the laws and regulations of the jurisdictional authorities when the pay for and obtain a license.

 

[BullKurtz]

No it wont end up bloody. Like most of your type you are nothing but talk.

Aw, the butterfly queer chimes in.....did I frighten you, Lucy?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah. So, the protection of rights of the business owner, under the 14th amendment, must be equal to those of the patron.
How does fording the business owner to associate with those he has fundamental disagreements with afford that equal protection?

The business owner is not being forced to do anything.

Oh. So if a gay couple wants a Christian baker to make them a wedding cake, the baker can refuse to do so because gay marriage violates his religious beliefs.
Good to know. Not sure why there's a uproar.

 

[Camp]

The business owner does not have a constitutional right to open and operate a business outside of the control and regulation of the various jurisdictions tasked by law to regulate and control said business. A business operates with the permission of jurisdictional authority. The 14th Amendment is the constitutional right that Americans have to equal protection under the law. The businesses privilege to operate a commercial business does not supercede the citizens constitutional right to equal treatment.

STFU ya whimpering little pussy. Without commerce there IS no government to bully business around. And the 14th Amendment protects the individual businessman too. We have the right to serve who we please as long as we don't find their behavior offensive. It has nothing to do with race or gender. It's about behavior; that's what determines whether you get service or not. Why should a Christian baker provide his services to two men who's entire "lifestyle" revolves around anal sex? He doesn't have to in 22 states...states that passed similar standards at the REQUEST of the Clinton administration.

Why do you tell people to STFU? They never listen to you. Your an old fool that gets pounded on for being a fake Marine. So why don't you STFU because you obviously don't know crap about this topic. You are repeating old worn out talking points that prove your stupidity on the topic.