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

[PaintMyHouse]

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

'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.'

At least you're consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, its rulings are the law of the land.

That you and others on the right disagree with those rulings as a consequence of your ignorance and hate is thankfully irrelevant.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress, as well as state and local governments, to enact regulatory policy concerning the markets, including public accommodations laws, and to regulate private business.

The fact that the Supreme Court has a long history of deciding cases incorrectly is hardly irrelevant. It's the difference between freedom and tyranny. Servile toadies like you defend the Supreme Court's judicial tyranny. No surprise there.

Some people, not you of course, deal with the reality that the Supreme Court has the final say on American laws. The Buck stops there, and the grownups deal with it.

 

[Gadawg73]

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

'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.'

At least you're consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, its rulings are the law of the land.

That you and others on the right disagree with those rulings as a consequence of your ignorance and hate is thankfully irrelevant.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress, as well as state and local governments, to enact regulatory policy concerning the markets, including public accommodations laws, and to regulate private business.

The fact that the Supreme Court has a long history of deciding cases incorrectly is hardly irrelevant. It's the difference between freedom and tyranny. Servile toadies like you defend the Supreme Court's judicial tyranny. No surprise there.

Incorrectly because they do not jive with your religious beliefs.
Where did you get your law degree and what state are you a member of the bar?

 

[Gadawg73]

Some folks cry, take their soccer ball and go home when things do not go their way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

"No American" I am one and bet top coin I am not alone.

Tell us what businesses open to the general public you don't patronize because you fear the owners might disapprove of who you are.

And that you're not alone in believing patrons should refrain from patronizing a business solely because they're afraid of offending the business owner is part of the problem.

 

[bodecea]

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?

For this reason:

Jim Crow wasn't the decision of the business owner, moron. It was mandated by state law.

No it wasn't, but if it was it's a can't-lose argument against states rights.

States rights is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I'm sorry of you find that document embarrassing.

ah yes...States rights. We know what that meant...and means.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Post something of substance, sans an ad hominem

You first. You denigrate just about anyone who disagrees with you. You call them fools and the like. You can shove your pragmatism. I'm not buying it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has anyone yet come up with the legitimate religious belief of any known religion that says that loyal followers of that religion must obey a religious law, of that religion, that prohibits doing business with a homosexual?

 

[bripat9643]

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

'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.'

At least you're consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, its rulings are the law of the land.

That you and others on the right disagree with those rulings as a consequence of your ignorance and hate is thankfully irrelevant.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress, as well as state and local governments, to enact regulatory policy concerning the markets, including public accommodations laws, and to regulate private business.

The fact that the Supreme Court has a long history of deciding cases incorrectly is hardly irrelevant. It's the difference between freedom and tyranny. Servile toadies like you defend the Supreme Court's judicial tyranny. No surprise there.

Some people, not you of course, deal with the reality that the Supreme Court has the final say on American laws. The Buck stops there, and the grownups deal with it.

Would that include the petulant children who have been whining for 15 years that the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election from Algore?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I spent a career putting people in jail who denied having their hand in the cookie jar, even when shown a picture of them with their hand in the cookie jar.

I've spent nearly 5 years on forums just like this one, arguing with tens of hundreds of people just like you. You know what I learned? You folks are hypocrites. You claim objectivity, proclaiming how logical and pragmatic you are, then when someone kicks your backside in a debate, you start calling people liars, sans argument. You resort to smear tactics and character assassinations. You do everything except argue the point.

If only you spent a career learning simple manners....

Now, I'm not suggesting you're a criminal, but the evidence strongly suggests you have a character flaw very similar to one.

Case in point. You can't go ten words without insulting someone.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Post something of substance, sans an ad hominem

You first. You denigrate just about anyone who disagrees with you. You call them fools and the like. You can shove your pragmatism. I'm not buying it.

How you've confused me with PoliticalChic is astonishing.

I have the right to disagree and can be disagreeable when faced with fools. I'm happy to name the names of the fools, if you like. Be careful, you may join them:
\
CrusaderFrank
Stephanie
Where are my Keys
Rabbi

There's more, but these four are fine examples.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

'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.'

At least you're consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, its rulings are the law of the land.

That you and others on the right disagree with those rulings as a consequence of your ignorance and hate is thankfully irrelevant.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress, as well as state and local governments, to enact regulatory policy concerning the markets, including public accommodations laws, and to regulate private business.

The fact that the Supreme Court has a long history of deciding cases incorrectly is hardly irrelevant. It's the difference between freedom and tyranny. Servile toadies like you defend the Supreme Court's judicial tyranny. No surprise there.

Some people, not you of course, deal with the reality that the Supreme Court has the final say on American laws. The Buck stops there, and the grownups deal with it.

Would that include the petulant children who have been whining for 15 years that the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election from Algore?

It was not the Supreme Court, per se. It was the four conservative, activists justices.

 

[Gracie]

Ok..humor me and explain so I understand. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Which means if ones religion is against gay marriage/couples, etc then they can refuse service. Which begs the question...how does a clerk or owner of a store KNOW the customer is gay????
This has nothing to do with Freedom of RACISM. To refuse service to blacks .....then yeah, I would have a problem with any business that refuses service to someone that is black. Or hispanic. Or asian. Or even muslim.
So this bill signed is for religious freedom. Not race freedom. Or sexual preference freedom. It is RELIGIOUS freedom. And again...how does anyone know if a customer is gay, wiccan, pagan, baptist, catholic, etc? Where is the proverbial line to base those services on the religious aspect?

When I had my stores, I had a sign that said "We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone". If they had kids running around the store breaking shit, if they were obviously drunk or loaded and harassing other customers, if they were stinky with body odor and dressed like a bum that just crawled up from the sewers or if they were just flat out rude to me or my clerks...I told them to get the fuck out.

I never asked their spiritual beliefs or sexual preferences or which political party they belonged to or what their views were on abortion. They bought stuff, I rang it up and bagged it for them and they happily left with their purchases.

So...what is the big deal about this???

 

[TemplarKormac]

Post something of substance, sans an ad hominem

You first. You denigrate just about anyone who disagrees with you. You call them fools and the like. You can shove your pragmatism. I'm not buying it.

How you've confused me with PoliticalChic is astonishing.

I have the right to disagree and can be disagreeable when faced with fools. I'm happy to name the names of the fools, if you like. Be careful, you may join them:
\
CrusaderFrank
Stephanie
Where are my Keys
Rabbi

There's more, but these four are fine examples.

You have the right to disagree, of course. But you also have the right to continually embarrass yourself, as you are doing here.

I love how you keep making my point, how you aren't even arguing the subject matter of this thread anymore. Why is that?

And what is this obsession with PoliticalChic?

By calling people "fools" you only cement my case. You claim to be a prosecutor, but I really doubt you are. I don't like liars, especially liberal liars who are Trey Gowdy wannabes.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Thousands in Indy protest RFRA law
2 hrs ago - Thousands gathered in Downtown Indianapolis on Saturday to protest the passage this week of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The protesters chanted and held signs as they marched from Monument Circle to the Indiana Statehouse to express their ... (Indianapolis Star)

 

[Gracie]

Thousands in Indy protest RFRA law
2 hrs ago - Thousands gathered in Downtown Indianapolis on Saturday to protest the passage this week of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The protesters chanted and held signs as they marched from Monument Circle to the Indiana Statehouse to express their ... (Indianapolis Star)

So, what about businesses who are having THEIR rights stomped in the ground being FORCED to do something against THEIR religious beliefs? This all seems pretty one sided to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thousands in Indy protest RFRA law
2 hrs ago - Thousands gathered in Downtown Indianapolis on Saturday to protest the passage this week of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The protesters chanted and held signs as they marched from Monument Circle to the Indiana Statehouse to express their ... (Indianapolis Star)

So, what about businesses who are having THEIR rights stomped in the ground being FORCED to do something against THEIR religious beliefs? This all seems pretty one sided to me.

The Aztecs had human sacrifice as part of their beliefs. Do you think the Constitution protects that religious practice?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

We do don't serve n*ggers here has never worked

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Thousands in Indy protest RFRA law
2 hrs ago - Thousands gathered in Downtown Indianapolis on Saturday to protest the passage this week of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The protesters chanted and held signs as they marched from Monument Circle to the Indiana Statehouse to express their ... (Indianapolis Star)

So, what about businesses who are having THEIR rights stomped in the ground being FORCED to do something against THEIR religious beliefs? This all seems pretty one sided to me.

name those business and links please...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

GRACIE SAID:

"So, what about businesses who are having THEIR rights stomped in the ground being FORCED to do something against THEIR religious beliefs? This all seems pretty one sided to me."

That's because you're ignorant of the law.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper and Constitutional – no rights are being “stomped [into] the ground,” no business owner is being 'forced' to do something against his religious beliefs; laws, such as public accommodations laws, enacted in good faith, whose primary intent is that other than disadvantaging religion, are appropriate and valid, where religious belief cannot be used as an excuse to ignore or violate valid, appropriate laws.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

If the Supreme Court supports it, it's constitutional.

That's the theory that the Supreme Court is infallible. Do you believe it to be infallible?

Better than you