Pense says it's a smear!

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL The left made their demands, threatened boycotts, pulled their hair, stomped their feet and in the end Pence stuffs them.

 

[Jarhead]

Gov. Pence did an excellent job with his comments and Q&A today.

Bottom line: the law was not intended to legitimize discrimination. It is similar to the Federal law and laws in other states.

The Moonbat Media misrepresented the situtation (gee, quelle surprise on that one). Pence is quite properly doing damage control to fend off baseless and vicious attacks. So, when Indiana passes an anti-discrimination provision, the Prog Loons will just find some other thing about which to lie.

The real story here is that the Progs see that Indiana has turned red, and they are increasingly desperate regarding their prospects for 2016.

If the law as written was good, why is he amending the law?

he is changing the language so political hacks cant intentionally misconstrue what it says. He made that clear. He is not changing the law.

The law was basic....simple.....assholes like you are forcing changes in the wording so you cant be assholes about it.

That's all he is doing.

THE LAW WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS IT SHOULD. THE WORDS ARE CHANGING.

The Loons are So Disappointed that he is letting the air out of their Spin Balloon.

Sadly, the left is so fucing blind to what took place here. Pence is a conservative governor with a very clean past who is considering a run for the president.

So folks like Wasserman and Sharpton and Stephanopoulos found a way to ruin his name.

They took a basic law and spun it for their narrative.

And as expected...the left followed their lead.

They knew most, if not all, would not bother to read the law.

They were correct.

 

[boedicca]

Gov. Pence did an excellent job with his comments and Q&A today.

Bottom line: the law was not intended to legitimize discrimination. It is similar to the Federal law and laws in other states.

The Moonbat Media misrepresented the situtation (gee, quelle surprise on that one). Pence is quite properly doing damage control to fend off baseless and vicious attacks. So, when Indiana passes an anti-discrimination provision, the Prog Loons will just find some other thing about which to lie.

The real story here is that the Progs see that Indiana has turned red, and they are increasingly desperate regarding their prospects for 2016.

If the law as written was good, why is he amending the law?

he is changing the language so political hacks cant intentionally misconstrue what it says. He made that clear. He is not changing the law.

The law was basic....simple.....assholes like you are forcing changes in the wording so you cant be assholes about it.

That's all he is doing.

THE LAW WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS IT SHOULD. THE WORDS ARE CHANGING.

The Loons are So Disappointed that he is letting the air out of their Spin Balloon.

Sadly, the left is so fucing blind to what took place here. Pence is a conservative governor with a very clean past who is considering a run for the president.

So folks like Wasserman and Sharpton and Stephanopoulos found a way to ruin his name.

They took a basic law and spun it for their narrative.

And as expected...the left followed their lead.

They knew most, if not all, would not bother to read the law.

They were correct.

It's the same mentality that latched on the the Anti-Islamic Video Maker for Benghazi. Say a lie often enough, and plenty of gullible morons will believe it.

 

[Jarhead]

LOL The left made their demands, threatened boycotts, pulled their hair, stomped their feet and in the end Pence stuffs them.

yeah...their demands are..."single out the gays"

Yep, the ones who are all about "gays should be treated like everyone else" now want it as "treat the gays differently"

Go figure.

 

[Jarhead]

Gov. Pence did an excellent job with his comments and Q&A today.

Bottom line: the law was not intended to legitimize discrimination. It is similar to the Federal law and laws in other states.

The Moonbat Media misrepresented the situtation (gee, quelle surprise on that one). Pence is quite properly doing damage control to fend off baseless and vicious attacks. So, when Indiana passes an anti-discrimination provision, the Prog Loons will just find some other thing about which to lie.

The real story here is that the Progs see that Indiana has turned red, and they are increasingly desperate regarding their prospects for 2016.

If the law as written was good, why is he amending the law?

he is changing the language so political hacks cant intentionally misconstrue what it says. He made that clear. He is not changing the law.

The law was basic....simple.....assholes like you are forcing changes in the wording so you cant be assholes about it.

That's all he is doing.

THE LAW WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS IT SHOULD. THE WORDS ARE CHANGING.

The Loons are So Disappointed that he is letting the air out of their Spin Balloon.

Sadly, the left is so fucing blind to what took place here. Pence is a conservative governor with a very clean past who is considering a run for the president.

So folks like Wasserman and Sharpton and Stephanopoulos found a way to ruin his name.

They took a basic law and spun it for their narrative.

And as expected...the left followed their lead.

They knew most, if not all, would not bother to read the law.

They were correct.

It's the same mentality that latched on the the Anti-Islamic Video Maker for Benghazi. Say a lie often enough, and plenty of gullible morons will believe it.

yup...I got a kick out of how many on this board alone tired to argue how it is impossible to have 2 email addresses from 2 different servers on one device.

Of course, the next day, after the media said..."uh, Hillary....that is not a good excuse"...the left on here went on a rampage of how it is nothing more than a Hillary witch hunt.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gov. Pence did an excellent job with his comments and Q&A today.

Bottom line: the law was not intended to legitimize discrimination. It is similar to the Federal law and laws in other states.

The Moonbat Media misrepresented the situtation (gee, quelle surprise on that one). Pence is quite properly doing damage control to fend off baseless and vicious attacks. So, when Indiana passes an anti-discrimination provision, the Prog Loons will just find some other thing about which to lie.

The real story here is that the Progs see that Indiana has turned red, and they are increasingly desperate regarding their prospects for 2016.

If the law as written was good, why is he amending the law?

he is changing the language so political hacks cant intentionally misconstrue what it says. He made that clear. He is not changing the law.

The law was basic....simple.....assholes like you are forcing changes in the wording so you cant be assholes about it.

That's all he is doing.

THE LAW WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS IT SHOULD. THE WORDS ARE CHANGING.

The Loons are So Disappointed that he is letting the air out of their Spin Balloon.

Sadly, the left is so fucing blind to what took place here. Pence is a conservative governor with a very clean past who is considering a run for the president.

So folks like Wasserman and Sharpton and Stephanopoulos found a way to ruin his name.

They took a basic law and spun it for their narrative.

And as expected...the left followed their lead.

They knew most, if not all, would not bother to read the law.

They were correct.

It's the same mentality that latched on the the Anti-Islamic Video Maker for Benghazi. Say a lie often enough, and plenty of gullible morons will believe it.

 

[Jarhead]

Because of Leftwing hysteria that has convinced low information types that the law says something that it doesn't. The best way to combat it is clear language that says what it isn't intended to allow.

Bullshit, but keep comforting yourself with that idiocy.

And Raving once again confirms here solidarity with the Low Information Prog Loon faction.

hahahaha! You're the one that can't figure out how this law is different from every other religious freedom law.

Hahaha! You're the one who can't handle that Indiana is willing to make it clear that the law wasn't intended to discriminate against gays.

I know you're disappointed. Perhaps tormenting some small animal will cheer you up.

Are you in the area?

Indiana was warned repeatedly by a flock of lawyers of the actual meaning of this idiotic law. And they went ahead and passed it anyway. If the business world hadn't thrown a hissy fit, Past Tense Pence wouldn't have to amend the law.

that's a lie.

Lies are all you pretty much have.

 

[Ravi]

Bullshit, but keep comforting yourself with that idiocy.

And Raving once again confirms here solidarity with the Low Information Prog Loon faction.

hahahaha! You're the one that can't figure out how this law is different from every other religious freedom law.

Hahaha! You're the one who can't handle that Indiana is willing to make it clear that the law wasn't intended to discriminate against gays.

I know you're disappointed. Perhaps tormenting some small animal will cheer you up.

Are you in the area?

Indiana was warned repeatedly by a flock of lawyers of the actual meaning of this idiotic law. And they went ahead and passed it anyway. If the business world hadn't thrown a hissy fit, Past Tense Pence wouldn't have to amend the law.

that's a lie.

Lies are all you pretty much have.

Nope, it is exactly true.

 

[Jarhead]

And Raving once again confirms here solidarity with the Low Information Prog Loon faction.

hahahaha! You're the one that can't figure out how this law is different from every other religious freedom law.

Hahaha! You're the one who can't handle that Indiana is willing to make it clear that the law wasn't intended to discriminate against gays.

I know you're disappointed. Perhaps tormenting some small animal will cheer you up.

Are you in the area?

Indiana was warned repeatedly by a flock of lawyers of the actual meaning of this idiotic law. And they went ahead and passed it anyway. If the business world hadn't thrown a hissy fit, Past Tense Pence wouldn't have to amend the law.

that's a lie.

Lies are all you pretty much have.

Nope, it is exactly true.

Nope. False. Rumor. A few left leaning politicians questioned it. That's about all.

 

[Ravi]

hahahaha! You're the one that can't figure out how this law is different from every other religious freedom law.

Hahaha! You're the one who can't handle that Indiana is willing to make it clear that the law wasn't intended to discriminate against gays.

I know you're disappointed. Perhaps tormenting some small animal will cheer you up.

Are you in the area?

Indiana was warned repeatedly by a flock of lawyers of the actual meaning of this idiotic law. And they went ahead and passed it anyway. If the business world hadn't thrown a hissy fit, Past Tense Pence wouldn't have to amend the law.

that's a lie.

Lies are all you pretty much have.

Nope, it is exactly true.

Nope. False. Rumor. A few left leaning politicians questioned it. That's about all.

Nope. You really should expand your horizons beyond FOX.

 

[Jarhead]

Hahaha! You're the one who can't handle that Indiana is willing to make it clear that the law wasn't intended to discriminate against gays.

I know you're disappointed. Perhaps tormenting some small animal will cheer you up.

Are you in the area?

Indiana was warned repeatedly by a flock of lawyers of the actual meaning of this idiotic law. And they went ahead and passed it anyway. If the business world hadn't thrown a hissy fit, Past Tense Pence wouldn't have to amend the law.

that's a lie.

Lies are all you pretty much have.

Nope, it is exactly true.

Nope. False. Rumor. A few left leaning politicians questioned it. That's about all.

Nope. You really should expand your horizons beyond FOX.

and there you have it. If you can not prove your point, simply discredit the opposition.

Childs play Ravi. That is childs play.

I don't play with children.

 

[Ravi]

Are you in the area?

Indiana was warned repeatedly by a flock of lawyers of the actual meaning of this idiotic law. And they went ahead and passed it anyway. If the business world hadn't thrown a hissy fit, Past Tense Pence wouldn't have to amend the law.

that's a lie.

Lies are all you pretty much have.

Nope, it is exactly true.

Nope. False. Rumor. A few left leaning politicians questioned it. That's about all.

Nope. You really should expand your horizons beyond FOX.

and there you have it. If you can not prove your point, simply discredit the opposition.

Childs play Ravi. That is childs play.

I don't play with children.

I've never seen you play with anyone but yourself, so there is another one of your lies.

 

[Jarhead]

that's a lie.

Lies are all you pretty much have.

Nope, it is exactly true.

Nope. False. Rumor. A few left leaning politicians questioned it. That's about all.

Nope. You really should expand your horizons beyond FOX.

and there you have it. If you can not prove your point, simply discredit the opposition.

Childs play Ravi. That is childs play.

I don't play with children.

I've never seen you play with anyone but yourself, so there is another one of your lies.

well, seeing as you don't know me, have never met me, and can not see me......seems your post is more the lie than anything else.

You are pathetically too easy to toy with. You step in it just about every time.

 

[bendog]

Of course it is. This law is the same as the federal law.

The gay mafia will only obey the laws it wants to obey. Then make up their own for others to obey.

Indiana's law is less strict than Connecticut's....why isn't the left "boycotting" Connecticut?

because ....
Lambda Legal Applauds Connecticut Court for Extending Protections against Harassment to Gay Workers Lambda Legal

the court ruled?

What does that have to do with the governor.

Never mind. I cant deal with idiots that debate a law they did not read.

Anyone who had an issue with this law did not read it. That is fact.

The governor signed the law allowing for private discrimination against gays when there was no law protecting employment discrimination. If a state has employment protections, there's generally no great uproar about a separate law protecting the bakers.

he did not sign a law that allows for private discrimination against gays.
You are poorly informed. Horribly informed.
Read the law. I did.

In a nutshell...it says...and I paraphrase....

'if you opt to not conduct business with another business, or not perform a service for an individual, using "the compromising of my religious beliefs" as the reason.....and that business or individual cites you for discriminating against that business or individual, you will have the opportunity to, in a court of law, prove that your religious beliefs will have been compromised if you offered that service.

It does not allow for an issue of gay employment for hiring a gay individual does not compromise ones religious beliefs and there are already federal laws that prohibit such an act.

All this did was allow one to use "religious freedom" as a defense.....but not a reason to be "let off"...just the right to use it in a court of law...and one would have to prove it.

Read the law. Don't go by the rhetoric.

What truly makes you special, Jarhead, is your ability to ask a civil question, get a civil and correct answer, and then respond with a personal insult telling the responder they have no idea what they're talking about WHEN THE SIMPLE ACT OF USING THE INTERNET WOULD ANSWER YOUR FOCKING STUPID QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. lol

 

[Jarhead]

Indiana's law is less strict than Connecticut's....why isn't the left "boycotting" Connecticut?

because ....
Lambda Legal Applauds Connecticut Court for Extending Protections against Harassment to Gay Workers Lambda Legal

the court ruled?

What does that have to do with the governor.

Never mind. I cant deal with idiots that debate a law they did not read.

Anyone who had an issue with this law did not read it. That is fact.

The governor signed the law allowing for private discrimination against gays when there was no law protecting employment discrimination. If a state has employment protections, there's generally no great uproar about a separate law protecting the bakers.

he did not sign a law that allows for private discrimination against gays.
You are poorly informed. Horribly informed.
Read the law. I did.

In a nutshell...it says...and I paraphrase....

'if you opt to not conduct business with another business, or not perform a service for an individual, using "the compromising of my religious beliefs" as the reason.....and that business or individual cites you for discriminating against that business or individual, you will have the opportunity to, in a court of law, prove that your religious beliefs will have been compromised if you offered that service.

It does not allow for an issue of gay employment for hiring a gay individual does not compromise ones religious beliefs and there are already federal laws that prohibit such an act.

All this did was allow one to use "religious freedom" as a defense.....but not a reason to be "let off"...just the right to use it in a court of law...and one would have to prove it.

Read the law. Don't go by the rhetoric.

What truly makes you special, Jarhead, is your ability to ask a civil question, get a civil and correct answer, and then respond with a personal insult telling the responder they have no idea what they're talking about WHEN THE SIMPLE ACT OF USING THE INTERNET WOULD ANSWER YOUR FOCKING STUPID QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. lol

I did not get a correct answer. I got an opinion. I have been asking where in the law does it give a company a right to discriminate and all I get is a regurgitation of talking points such as "the governor signed a law allowing for private discrimination bah blah blah.

I read the law. Nowhere does I give anyone permission to discriminate. SO I continue to ask WHERE DOES ITS SYA IT DOES and folks like you tell me to google the law.

read it. I READ IT....show me where ot says you have the right to discriminate. I did not see it anywhere. Show me I am missing it by showing me where it is.

YOU CANT. I know this as fact because I know as fact it does not exist in the law.

It is simply YOUR interpretation.

Prove me wrong smart ass.

 

[hangover]

This is not going to go away, as much as the cons would want it to.The bigotry of the GOP is exposed, they know it, and everyone else knows it. This issue will dog the far right for the next year and a half. Cruz, and the rest of the right wingers just lost any chance of getting the nomination. All the GOP candidates will be spending all of their time trying to defend republican bigotry. Indiana just gave the 2016 election to the democrats.

 

[bendog]

because ....
Lambda Legal Applauds Connecticut Court for Extending Protections against Harassment to Gay Workers Lambda Legal

the court ruled?

What does that have to do with the governor.

Never mind. I cant deal with idiots that debate a law they did not read.

Anyone who had an issue with this law did not read it. That is fact.

The governor signed the law allowing for private discrimination against gays when there was no law protecting employment discrimination. If a state has employment protections, there's generally no great uproar about a separate law protecting the bakers.

he did not sign a law that allows for private discrimination against gays.
You are poorly informed. Horribly informed.
Read the law. I did.

In a nutshell...it says...and I paraphrase....

'if you opt to not conduct business with another business, or not perform a service for an individual, using "the compromising of my religious beliefs" as the reason.....and that business or individual cites you for discriminating against that business or individual, you will have the opportunity to, in a court of law, prove that your religious beliefs will have been compromised if you offered that service.

It does not allow for an issue of gay employment for hiring a gay individual does not compromise ones religious beliefs and there are already federal laws that prohibit such an act.

All this did was allow one to use "religious freedom" as a defense.....but not a reason to be "let off"...just the right to use it in a court of law...and one would have to prove it.

Read the law. Don't go by the rhetoric.

What truly makes you special, Jarhead, is your ability to ask a civil question, get a civil and correct answer, and then respond with a personal insult telling the responder they have no idea what they're talking about WHEN THE SIMPLE ACT OF USING THE INTERNET WOULD ANSWER YOUR FOCKING STUPID QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. lol

I did not get a correct answer. I got an opinion. I have been asking where in the law does it give a company a right to discriminate and all I get is a regurgitation of talking points such as "the governor signed a law allowing for private discrimination bah blah blah.

I read the law. Nowhere does I give anyone permission to discriminate. SO I continue to ask WHERE DOES ITS SYA IT DOES and folks like you tell me to google the law.

read it. I READ IT....show me where ot says you have the right to discriminate. I did not see it anywhere. Show me I am missing it by showing me where it is.

YOU CANT. I know this as fact because I know as fact it does not exist in the law.

It is simply YOUR interpretation.

Prove me wrong smart ass.

I gave you a fuckign link asshole. Goodbye.

 

[bendog]

This is not going to go away, as much as the cons would want it to.The bigotry of the GOP is exposed, they know it, and everyone else knows it. This issue will dog the far right for the next year and a half. Cruz, and the rest of the right wingers just lost any chance of getting the nomination. All the GOP candidates will be spending all of their time trying to defend republican bigotry. Indiana just gave the 2016 election to the democrats.

Yes and no. The former governor Mitch Daniels came out (_: against the law immediately, as did the larger corporations. Eli Lilly is well known as having non-discriminatory policies.

I think what the effect on the gop candidates will be is that they're going to be asked the very questions Stephanopolis asked Pence on Sunday, like. Governor Bush, you said you supported the law. Does that mean you think companies have a right to discriminate against gays when hiring, and if so, when and in what circumstances.

Guys like Cruz and Huckabee were always going to implode from saying stupid stuff. But Indiana gave the dems their first clown car issue this time around. Jeb's already stepped in the steaming pile of dog doo (-: It'll be fun to see how he gets out of it.

 

[Jarhead]

This is not going to go away, as much as the cons would want it to.The bigotry of the GOP is exposed, they know it, and everyone else knows it. This issue will dog the far right for the next year and a half. Cruz, and the rest of the right wingers just lost any chance of getting the nomination. All the GOP candidates will be spending all of their time trying to defend republican bigotry. Indiana just gave the 2016 election to the democrats.

So far every single person...EVERY SINGLE ONE

the court ruled?

What does that have to do with the governor.

Never mind. I cant deal with idiots that debate a law they did not read.

Anyone who had an issue with this law did not read it. That is fact.

The governor signed the law allowing for private discrimination against gays when there was no law protecting employment discrimination. If a state has employment protections, there's generally no great uproar about a separate law protecting the bakers.

he did not sign a law that allows for private discrimination against gays.
You are poorly informed. Horribly informed.
Read the law. I did.

In a nutshell...it says...and I paraphrase....

'if you opt to not conduct business with another business, or not perform a service for an individual, using "the compromising of my religious beliefs" as the reason.....and that business or individual cites you for discriminating against that business or individual, you will have the opportunity to, in a court of law, prove that your religious beliefs will have been compromised if you offered that service.

It does not allow for an issue of gay employment for hiring a gay individual does not compromise ones religious beliefs and there are already federal laws that prohibit such an act.

All this did was allow one to use "religious freedom" as a defense.....but not a reason to be "let off"...just the right to use it in a court of law...and one would have to prove it.

Read the law. Don't go by the rhetoric.

What truly makes you special, Jarhead, is your ability to ask a civil question, get a civil and correct answer, and then respond with a personal insult telling the responder they have no idea what they're talking about WHEN THE SIMPLE ACT OF USING THE INTERNET WOULD ANSWER YOUR FOCKING STUPID QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. lol

I did not get a correct answer. I got an opinion. I have been asking where in the law does it give a company a right to discriminate and all I get is a regurgitation of talking points such as "the governor signed a law allowing for private discrimination bah blah blah.

I read the law. Nowhere does I give anyone permission to discriminate. SO I continue to ask WHERE DOES ITS SYA IT DOES and folks like you tell me to google the law.

read it. I READ IT....show me where ot says you have the right to discriminate. I did not see it anywhere. Show me I am missing it by showing me where it is.

YOU CANT. I know this as fact because I know as fact it does not exist in the law.

It is simply YOUR interpretation.

Prove me wrong smart ass.

I gave you a fuckign link asshole. Goodbye.

No you didn't, smart ass. You gave me a link regarding the Connecticut situation.

I asked you to show me WHERE in the law does it give a company the right to discriminate. I read the law and nowhere did I see it...so I am asking you to show me where in the law it says that.

And you have not yet answered. Actually, no one has. Not one person has been able to show proof that the law says that.

Not a single person.

So, again, I read the law...I also scanned through it numerous times...and I can not find anything that gives a company the right to discriminate.

I did, however, understand it as giving a person or a company the right to defend themselves against discrimination IF they can prove they were following religious beliefs.

But I ask you, Mr. Smartestmanintheroom......where does it say what you claim?

 

[Jarhead]

This is not going to go away, as much as the cons would want it to.The bigotry of the GOP is exposed, they know it, and everyone else knows it. This issue will dog the far right for the next year and a half. Cruz, and the rest of the right wingers just lost any chance of getting the nomination. All the GOP candidates will be spending all of their time trying to defend republican bigotry. Indiana just gave the 2016 election to the democrats.

Maybe you will be man enough to show me where, in the law, it gives an individual or a company the right to discriminate. Bendog refuses. Ravi disappeared after I asked her. Daw101 disappeared as well when asked.

SO I am asking you. Show me you are not some hack. Show me you read the law. Cite what paragraph in the law gives a person or company the right to discriminate.

Bet you do what bendog did....you know...his tactic of taking the high road, not answering the question...criticizing my approach and then telling me to fuck off....yet never answering the question.

You like him or are you an individual who is willing to debate.