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

[Dot Com]

more xstain taliban nonsense to get their base riled-up.

 

[percysunshine]

Signing a bill into law, one passed by a legislature, which deprives a segment of the population of the same right available to the majority of citizens defines Authoritarianism.

The 1st Amendment is already law, Comrade. You have no right to force others to serve you. Free people serve whom they choose, slave serve whom they are ordered to serve.

You leftists still demand slavery, 150 years after the Republicans kicked your ass on this issue the first time.

People are NOT your property to depose of as you please.

As a concrete thinker, and I use the word thinker in relation to you loosely, I understand how you compartmentalize the word Freedom. Freedom is not absolute, no matter how you have come to understand the language used in the First and Second Amendments to the COTUS.

No religion can engage in human sacrifice.
No citizen can utter they have a bomb as they board a plane.
No citizen can yell fire in a crowded theater.
The right to own a fully automatic weapon is highly restricted.

Technically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows what Indiana has done, because the GLBT community was not included in the protected class. That does not mean the Governor and legislature is not culpable. Though in the current iteration of the of the Republican Party, the Party of the small tent, such a law is fine and dandy - one more example of dishonesty and hypocrisy in their membership.

What is it about you people which precludes you from understanding that RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE. And that for there to be the potential for a right, first such must be recognized in and for EVERYONE and that right must correlate to sustaining responsibilities; not the least of which is to not exercise their right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

YOU; the cult of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, are the only one's who claim that RIGHTS are void of responsibility, thus lending the sense that YOUR RIGHTS are absolute; meaning that you're FREE to exercise them without regard to how it effects anyone else.

Yet here you are claiming that your opposition holds such a position.

The right to equal treatment from a business regardless of your sexual orientation is clearly a right that needs to be protected.

.

Then we should put it in the Constitution. Why is this a problem?


Thirteenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution
Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery And Involuntary Servitude
Amendment Text | Annotations

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Thirteenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw.

.

 

[bripat9643]

No one is telling you faggots that you can't discriminate against Christians.

Except Federal and state laws...

I didn't write those laws. Government cannot discriminate against anyone, but private people should be able to associate with who they wish.

Whether you wrote them or not, as a US citizen you abide by them or suffer the consequences. You're silly "I don't believe in the government" isn't worth entertaining the time it took to type about it.

Thanks for explaining to me that government enforces the laws it passes. I didn't know that! Of course, that excludes laws Obama doesn't like.

The Constitution doesn't give government the authority to regulate a business, period, so all such laws are illegitimate.

 

[bripat9643]

Signing a bill into law, one passed by a legislature, which deprives a segment of the population of the same right available to the majority of citizens defines Authoritarianism.

The 1st Amendment is already law, Comrade. You have no right to force others to serve you. Free people serve whom they choose, slave serve whom they are ordered to serve.

You leftists still demand slavery, 150 years after the Republicans kicked your ass on this issue the first time.

People are NOT your property to depose of as you please.

As a concrete thinker, and I use the word thinker in relation to you loosely, I understand how you compartmentalize the word Freedom. Freedom is not absolute, no matter how you have come to understand the language used in the First and Second Amendments to the COTUS.

No religion can engage in human sacrifice.
No citizen can utter they have a bomb as they board a plane.
No citizen can yell fire in a crowded theater.
The right to own a fully automatic weapon is highly restricted.

Technically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows what Indiana has done, because the GLBT community was not included in the protected class. That does not mean the Governor and legislature is not culpable. Though in the current iteration of the of the Republican Party, the Party of the small tent, such a law is fine and dandy - one more example of dishonesty and hypocrisy in their membership.

What is it about you people which precludes you from understanding that RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE. And that for there to be the potential for a right, first such must be recognized in and for EVERYONE and that right must correlate to sustaining responsibilities; not the least of which is to not exercise their right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

YOU; the cult of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, are the only one's who claim that RIGHTS are void of responsibility, thus lending the sense that YOUR RIGHTS are absolute; meaning that you're FREE to exercise them without regard to how it effects anyone else.

Yet here you are claiming that your opposition holds such a position.

The right to equal treatment from a business regardless of your sexual orientation is clearly a right that needs to be protected.

It's not a right, and it doesn't need to be protected. According to turds like you, rights are whatever the government says they are. So how can you have a right that isn't protected? That would imply rights are something other than the laws on the books.

 

[bripat9643]

If I was gay I would want to know where I am not wanted.Only a fool would run their business that way but world is full of dumbasses. We are in a shooting war where folks are chopping heads for sport because their book tells them to and clowns over here want to treat gay folks as scum and 2nd class citizens because their book tells them to.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

We shouldn't have to play these games where we accommodate the hatred of others in the name of religion

Want to bar them from your church? You have the right

Want to bar them from your business? Take your business elsewhere

As always, you provide no justification for your policy other than stamping your foot and petulantly announcing you don't like people having the freedom to choose who they serve in their businesses.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...announcing you don't like people having the freedom to choose who they serve in their businesses.

What part of people already don't have that freedom do you not get?

 

[bripat9643]

...announcing you don't like people having the freedom to choose who they serve in their businesses.

What part of people already don't have that freedom do you not get?

Then what are you and the rest of the queers whining about?

 

[guno]

Signing a bill into law, one passed by a legislature, which deprives a segment of the population of the same right available to the majority of citizens defines Authoritarianism.

The 1st Amendment is already law, Comrade. You have no right to force others to serve you. Free people serve whom they choose, slave serve whom they are ordered to serve.

You leftists still demand slavery, 150 years after the Republicans kicked your ass on this issue the first time.

People are NOT your property to depose of as you please.

As a concrete thinker, and I use the word thinker in relation to you loosely, I understand how you compartmentalize the word Freedom. Freedom is not absolute, no matter how you have come to understand the language used in the First and Second Amendments to the COTUS.

No religion can engage in human sacrifice.
No citizen can utter they have a bomb as they board a plane.
No citizen can yell fire in a crowded theater.
The right to own a fully automatic weapon is highly restricted.

Technically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows what Indiana has done, because the GLBT community was not included in the protected class. That does not mean the Governor and legislature is not culpable. Though in the current iteration of the of the Republican Party, the Party of the small tent, such a law is fine and dandy - one more example of dishonesty and hypocrisy in their membership.

Deviant Sexualities are NOT viable candidates for protected legal status, as human sexuality is about CHOSEN BEHAVIOR. There is no Homosexual Gender, or Transgender. There are only males and females.

And this entirely without regard to the idiots who claim otherwise.

So says the uneducated bible thumper

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...announcing you don't like people having the freedom to choose who they serve in their businesses.

What part of people already don't have that freedom do you not get?

Then what are you and the rest of the queers whining about?

They aren't fully included in the list of people, under reasonable conditions, you are required by law to serve. The "freedom" that you believe exists, doesn't, and hasn't for decades.

 

[bripat9643]

...announcing you don't like people having the freedom to choose who they serve in their businesses.

What part of people already don't have that freedom do you not get?

Then what are you and the rest of the queers whining about?

They aren't fully included in the list of people, under reasonable conditions, you are required by law to serve. The "freedom" that you believe exists, doesn't, and hasn't for decades.

You said they didn't have the freedom to exclude gays. No you're claiming they do. Which is it?

 

[rightwinger]

If I was gay I would want to know where I am not wanted.Only a fool would run their business that way but world is full of dumbasses. We are in a shooting war where folks are chopping heads for sport because their book tells them to and clowns over here want to treat gay folks as scum and 2nd class citizens because their book tells them to.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

We shouldn't have to play these games where we accommodate the hatred of others in the name of religion

Want to bar them from your church? You have the right

Want to bar them from your business? Take your business elsewhere

Or how about acknowledging the argument that is actually being made here which has absolutely nothing to do with barring anybody at all from our church or our business.

Hatred takes all kinds of forms including those who insist on demonizing, accusing and blaming people in dishonest ways because the honest argument just doesn't fit the politically correct culture.

Your argument, no matter how many times you make it is invalid

The members of the KKK are there by choice. They are not born KKK members

KKK is a terrorist organization, you equating them to gays is offensive

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...announcing you don't like people having the freedom to choose who they serve in their businesses.

What part of people already don't have that freedom do you not get?

Then what are you and the rest of the queers whining about?

They aren't fully included in the list of people, under reasonable conditions, you are required by law to serve. The "freedom" that you believe exists, doesn't, and hasn't for decades.

You said they didn't have the freedom to exclude gays. No you're claiming they do. Which is it?

You'd have to have reading comprehension to understand, but businesses haven't had the "freedom" to just refuse service for decades now.

 

[bripat9643]

...announcing you don't like people having the freedom to choose who they serve in their businesses.

What part of people already don't have that freedom do you not get?

Then what are you and the rest of the queers whining about?

They aren't fully included in the list of people, under reasonable conditions, you are required by law to serve. The "freedom" that you believe exists, doesn't, and hasn't for decades.

You said they didn't have the freedom to exclude gays. No you're claiming they do. Which is it?

You'd have to have reading comprehension to understand, but businesses haven't had the "freedom" to just refuse service for decades now.

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I was gay I would want to know where I am not wanted.Only a fool would run their business that way but world is full of dumbasses. We are in a shooting war where folks are chopping heads for sport because their book tells them to and clowns over here want to treat gay folks as scum and 2nd class citizens because their book tells them to.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

We shouldn't have to play these games where we accommodate the hatred of others in the name of religion

Want to bar them from your church? You have the right

Want to bar them from your business? Take your business elsewhere

Or how about acknowledging the argument that is actually being made here which has absolutely nothing to do with barring anybody at all from our church or our business.

Hatred takes all kinds of forms including those who insist on demonizing, accusing and blaming people in dishonest ways because the honest argument just doesn't fit the politically correct culture.

Your argument, no matter how many times you make it is invalid

The members of the KKK are there by choice. They are not born KKK members

KKK is a terrorist organization, you equating them to gays is offensive

It would be offensive if I had equated them to gays. I didn't. I have said and will say it again, a whole bunch of folks on the left definitely have a reading comprehension problem and have no sense of context at all.

The context I used by the way had absolutely nothing to do with what somebody is when they are born. It has everything to do with what activities they choose to engage in after they are born.

 

[paperview]

What part of people already don't have that freedom do you not get?

Then what are you and the rest of the queers whining about?

They aren't fully included in the list of people, under reasonable conditions, you are required by law to serve. The "freedom" that you believe exists, doesn't, and hasn't for decades.

You said they didn't have the freedom to exclude gays. No you're claiming they do. Which is it?

You'd have to have reading comprehension to understand, but businesses haven't had the "freedom" to just refuse service for decades now.

You just said they did. Which is it?

BTW, the law on that issue is totally illegitimate. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to regulate private business. FDR intimidated the SC into agreeing to it. It's the same as a mugger holding a gun to his victims head and demanding money. Then he calls the money "mine." It still isn't his.

Huh? What did FDR have to do with the CRA of 64?

 

[rightwinger]

If I was gay I would want to know where I am not wanted.Only a fool would run their business that way but world is full of dumbasses. We are in a shooting war where folks are chopping heads for sport because their book tells them to and clowns over here want to treat gay folks as scum and 2nd class citizens because their book tells them to.

Nonsense.

No American should be concerned with patronizing a business that accommodates the general public simply because of who he is, particularly given the fact that nowhere in Christian dogma does the act of accommodating a homosexual in the context of a business transaction constitutes a 'violation' of that dogma.

We shouldn't have to play these games where we accommodate the hatred of others in the name of religion

Want to bar them from your church? You have the right

Want to bar them from your business? Take your business elsewhere

Or how about acknowledging the argument that is actually being made here which has absolutely nothing to do with barring anybody at all from our church or our business.

Hatred takes all kinds of forms including those who insist on demonizing, accusing and blaming people in dishonest ways because the honest argument just doesn't fit the politically correct culture.

Your argument, no matter how many times you make it is invalid

The members of the KKK are there by choice. They are not born KKK members

KKK is a terrorist organization, you equating them to gays is offensive

It would be offensive if I had equated them to gays. I didn't. I have said and will say it again, a whole bunch of folks on the left definitely have a reading comprehension problem and have no sense of context at all.

The context I used by the way had absolutely nothing to do with what somebody is when they are born. It has everything to do with what activities they choose to engage in after they are born.

Your context and comparison to the KKK is offensive

No.......it is not the same thing

 

[TemplarKormac]

Business exists to make money selling a product, not making judgments of their potential customers.

Then why are we allowed to judge, or even set aside, the beliefs of the business owners?

Did you really just ask why we are allowed to think?

What are you talking about? What part of that question made such a suggestion? Interpol spoke of making judgments of customers, I replied by asking, "so why do we judge the business owner?"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes you are culpable for editing by omission my post, and as we both know lying by omission is still lying.

Really? You calling me a liar? Hilarious.

If you don't want me honing in on parts of your post I wish to respond to, then don't make the post. Easy enough, right?

 

[Gracie]

I seriously don't see the problem with this new law. It goes along the lines of "we have the right to refuse service to anyone", doesn't it? If businesses do not want to cater to homosexuals or muslims or green skinned aliens....then that is on the businesses' heads...and pocket book. Businesses should not be FORCED to do business with those that go against their own freedom of choice.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, I'm honest.

No, you are not.

You have every right to remain one of the willfully ignorant, fixed in a little box of ideas and unwilling to escape.

Interesting. I find your attempts at objectivity to leave a lot to be desired. So much for being a "pragmatist." I like those thinly veiled insults of yours, by the way.

Next time quote the entire passage,

I'll quote whatever the hell I want. I'm well within the rules by selecting and quoting elements of your post. Go read the forum rules. Now are you more interested in lecturing me about how I quoted your post, or will you address the responses in my previous posts?

otherwise you will find me less tolerant and one of those I point out in the following paragraph which you chose to eliminate

Ahh, threats. You were never tolerant to begin with.