Will Republicans ever learn? Indiana governor to sign bill allowing business not to serve gays

I pick my and choose who I sell to. Have been doing so for over twenty years and haven't had a complaint yet.

Based on what criteria?

Several actually. If a person comes in to buy twenty guns and he has cold hard cash, I won't sell. If a person comes in with saggy pants, I won't sell, if a person comes in and something seems to be a little off about him, I won't sell. It's basically a judgment call, based on actions, appearance, mannerisms and small talk concerning the purpose for the firearm.

That's different, dummy. Are you going to act stupid now? You know that's not what we are talking about.

Try honesty. Otherwise....why bother?

I've been honest this whole time. I'm saying a private business should be able to pick and choose there client base using whatever criteria that suits them. After all this is supposed to be a free country. A person should be free to refuse service and you are free to find another vendor.

their

No. I've already explained why that isn't an option. You have to obey the law. The law says you cannot discriminate based on race, religion or gender. Baggy pants? No shoes? Bad breath? Sure. But if that ****** comes in wearing a suit and smelling like roses....you WILL sell him a gun.

Dumb ass.

I see stores with signs in the door that says "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" all the time.
 
There is no "participation" in events by vendors. The African American baker is a baker, not a participant. The Gay florists is a florist, not a participant.

Applying the condition of participation broadens the mandate for vendors into and area that is untenable. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet invited guests are. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet clergy is. Wedding vendors are not participants, yet family is.

Vendors provide services, they are not participants.

Hmm... Now as a vendor, does one or does one not provide the means to celebrate deviancy; where the wedding is one which seeks to join one male with one male, which as you may have heard, represents a 180 degree deviation from the human physiological standard.
 
As opposed to you and YOUR pervert friends?

Of course no one has demanded that YOU be forced to serve me and my pervert friends.

This issue is civil rights,. you oppose them, I support them. You seek to use the implied force of men with guns in the government to coerce others to serve you against their will. That is both immoral and unconstitutional.
 
Based on what criteria?

Several actually. If a person comes in to buy twenty guns and he has cold hard cash, I won't sell. If a person comes in with saggy pants, I won't sell, if a person comes in and something seems to be a little off about him, I won't sell. It's basically a judgment call, based on actions, appearance, mannerisms and small talk concerning the purpose for the firearm.

That's different, dummy. Are you going to act stupid now? You know that's not what we are talking about.

Try honesty. Otherwise....why bother?

I've been honest this whole time. I'm saying a private business should be able to pick and choose there client base using whatever criteria that suits them. After all this is supposed to be a free country. A person should be free to refuse service and you are free to find another vendor.

their

No. I've already explained why that isn't an option. You have to obey the law. The law says you cannot discriminate based on race, religion or gender. Baggy pants? No shoes? Bad breath? Sure. But if that ****** comes in wearing a suit and smelling like roses....you WILL sell him a gun.

Dumb ass.

I see stores with signs in the door that says "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" all the time.

signs say............ a sign says

Yeah? Could you read them and comprehend them? Because you sure didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Imbecile.
 
For you, it may very well be

Marriage is, a law of nature, which requires such is he joining of one man and one woman.

FYI: another Law of Nature is that lending money to people on the basis of a deviant interpretation of 'fairness: defined as "Everyone deserves to own their own home", will lead to the catastrophic failure of loans made on such.

(Reader, you should know that the above cited contributor and 100% of those who agree with him with regard to rejecting the natural law of marriage, were in total support of the Left's decades long effort to coerce the Financial Industry into dropping the longstanding, sustaining actuarial lending principles, for the Left's perverse definition of fairness. And well, you remember how that worked out. What you may not know is that the financial industry, while an important element of the culture, is irrelevant in terms of sustaining the culture, when compared to the Nucleus of the Culture; OKA: Marriage. And while the Leftist policy that modified lending principle lead to financial catastrophe... the consequences of what they're foolishly proposing here will be exponentially more destructive. In truth, you've no means to so much as imagine the brutality to come from following their road map BACK to humanity's understanding of natural law.)

Nobody is forcing you to marry someone against your beliefs

You just can't force the government to accept your biggotry
Ah but it's ok to force the government to accept bigotry against Christians.

It is the Christians exhibiting the biggotry. They are the ones passing judgement

So are you and your pervert friends.

None of my friends would have anything to do with you
 
Pence is beatable and Indiana have an open Senate seat due to Dan Coats retiring............make the Religious bigots pay the political price....hit them in the wallet...Boycott Indiana fiercely........
 
Golly! Some Conservatives sure do not understand what Liberty means!

Uh, "liberty"? One of the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution is the freedom of religion; another one is the freedom of speech; another one is the freedom of association; and another one is the right of private property.

There's no "liberty" that bigoted gay couples get to target Christian business people and then get them fined or jailed, and even bankrupted, for not wanting to service a ceremony that they find spiritually and morally offensive, especially when the gay couple has their choice of plenty of businesses that don't mind servicing their ceremony. That's not "liberty"; that's un-American bigotry and intolerance toward people of faith.
 
I co-own a business and the only public funds I've ever needed was gained by selling my products to the public.

Assclowns emote that since you drive on roads that you paid taxes for, you are their property because roads are public.

Assclowns are some stupid fuckers.

Yes, since gays pay taxes for police protection, they theorize that we are obligated to agree to any legislation they dream up granting gays special privileges.
 
I hate any threads where entitled white bigots with a narcissistic sense of self and a bigot mentality try to pretend they represent America and morality and patriotism...folks conservatives are trashy anti Americans
 
Marriage is, a law of nature, which requires such is he joining of one man and one woman.

FYI: another Law of Nature is that lending money to people on the basis of a deviant interpretation of 'fairness: defined as "Everyone deserves to own their own home", will lead to the catastrophic failure of loans made on such.

(Reader, you should know that the above cited contributor and 100% of those who agree with him with regard to rejecting the natural law of marriage, were in total support of the Left's decades long effort to coerce the Financial Industry into dropping the longstanding, sustaining actuarial lending principles, for the Left's perverse definition of fairness. And well, you remember how that worked out. What you may not know is that the financial industry, while an important element of the culture, is irrelevant in terms of sustaining the culture, when compared to the Nucleus of the Culture; OKA: Marriage. And while the Leftist policy that modified lending principle lead to financial catastrophe... the consequences of what they're foolishly proposing here will be exponentially more destructive. In truth, you've no means to so much as imagine the brutality to come from following their road map BACK to humanity's understanding of natural law.)

Nobody is forcing you to marry someone against your beliefs

You just can't force the government to accept your biggotry
Ah but it's ok to force the government to accept bigotry against Christians.

It is the Christians exhibiting the biggotry. They are the ones passing judgement

So are you and your pervert friends.
As opposed to you and YOUR pervert friends?

I don't have any friends that allow another male to fuck them up the ass.
 
There is a legal right, but there is no right in the absolute sense. The public accommodations act violates the rights of businesses. Furthermore, it only protects based on race, religion and national origin.

The Second Amendment violates the rights of communities who would rather be gun-free.
What I'm seeing here is hate filled bigots, spewing their vitriol against people who simply wish to conduct their lives and businesses according to their closely held religious beliefs. Your are the ones trying to force your value system on others and doing it in such a hateful way, I think it's inexcusable.

Remember the same values that give you the freedom to be you, also give me the freedom to be free from you. I see this as nothing more than atheist trying to further their persecution of people of faith, just another attempt by the left to destroy the 1st Amendment. The freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs as they see fit and the right of citizens to associate with the people they chose, are bedrock principles of this country that the left has been chipping away for decades. Now that the pendulum is swinging the other way you're having fits and calling names like spoiled little children.


Some of the greatest support for segregation was from religious groups who believed "GOD" didn't want the races to intermingle. How is this any different?

A person walking into a business to buy a retail product is one thing, forcing the proprietor to participate in a ceremony they object to outside the doors of the business is another. You can't force a pastor to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple he objects to and there is no logical reason to force a company to participate in a ceremony they object to. Do you really expect the business would produce its best efforts under such circumstances?


Nobody is forcing a pastor to perform any religious ceremony, and your implication that he would be is intentionally stupid. If a business sells an item or service, it is required to sell that item or service to anyone with the money. Get over it,

So saying "you can't force" suddenly becomes an implication that "you can force", what is your reading level 3rd grade? As for the rest of your BS, looks like that's changing doesn't it, get over it.


Not going to engage in whatever silliness you are trying to play concerning any preacher being forced to perform any ceremony. That has nothing to do with the subject and is immaterial. Some states might pass a few temporary laws to deny rights, but even the most rabid right winger has to realize that won't last.

Sorry, I over estimated your reading ability, carry on.
 
I hate any threads where entitled white bigots with a narcissistic sense of self and a bigot mentality try to pretend they represent America and morality and patriotism...folks conservatives are trashy anti Americans

The idea that you and your ilk represent America and morality and patriotism is too absurd for words to describe.
 
I just hate any thread where the gay Mafia weighs in. They bleat the same idiotic arguments over and over and they never give up. Their strategy is to annoy you to death.

ROFL! I LOVE threads where the ANSA Cult rallies... It's the same idiots that comprise the Anti-theist Mob
 

Forum List

Back
Top