Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The latter would be the fun part. Believe me, if you don't bake cakes for fags everyone is about to know it and that is not going to be good for business in the long run. While the Jesusfreaks may flock to buy cupcakes in the beginning, the corporate guys will ask for their orders to come in unmarked boxes and soon after stop calling period. That's what put good old Melissa out of business.The later would be a illegal, moron. Store owners are free to put whatever sign the like in their windows. That is, they are for the moment.I'd like to see two stickers around a lot. The We Don't Discriminate on the store windows, and the This Person Buys From Bigots slapped on the car bumpers of those who do.Having a sign up will hurt their business. People will see that here is a merchant who does not believe in equal rights.Please explain without calling names why having a sign up is such a bad idea. How is that a bad thing?
But by not having a sign warning customers of their policy, the business can go on discriminating without the public blow back.
Nice. Hit 'em where it counts, in the wallet.Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law
WASHINGTON -- Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) will sign an executive order on Monday barring state-funded travel to Indiana because of the state's new law that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.
More: Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law
Thank you, Governor Malloy, for sending a clear message to these Indiana bigots.
You're right of course. I'm not a thelogian. I was taught what Jesus said, i.e. Judge not lest ye be judged and He who is without sin shall cast the first stone and love your neighbor as you would love yourself. I must have confused those teachings with what the emminent theolgians in some so-called Christian circles who seem to believe that Jesus said all the aformentioned and added everything applies, but not to Gays.Sorry but who are you to dictate what Christian faith consists of?Their conscience as Christians will be offended? By not treating others as they themselves would be treated is a violation of Christian ethics? By judging others, are they following the teachings of Jesus Christ?It's a violation of their conscience. Isnt that obvious?Let's talk about religious freedom. What harm comes to Christians by providing the exact same services to gay couples? How is the Christian merchant's ability to practice his faith infringed? Does serving gays as they woul.d serve others impart some undue restriction on their right to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?Why he not just be honest and say this is a law that makes discrimination of gays legal and that's what the law is designed for. Instead he is skirting the question. Why not just be perfectly honest.
If you were being honest you would understand the issue is about freedom of religion and not discrimination.
However, that doesn't fit into the Moon Bat hate religion narrative. Just like "hands up don't shoot" wasn't the truth in the Moon Bat narrative of Black victimization.
How are Christians harmed?
No one ever said such a 'right' existed.No one has a right to be served, numskull.
The Bill of rights protects your right to be a racist, you stupid baboon. That's what Freedom of Speech and freedom of association are.This is what The Tea Party Religionist are really after...the Right to be blatant racists with impunity with legal protection ....
And you are allowed to be a racist, but we, society, sets the rules that businesses must follow. The business does not attend church, nor is it one. The No ******* church is allowed, the No ******* gas station is not. That is the reality, that you of course reject.The Bill of rights protects your right to be a racist, you stupid baboon. That's what Freedom of Speech and freedom of association are.This is what The Tea Party Religionist are really after...the Right to be blatant racists with impunity with legal protection ....
"A member of the H. of Rep. offer a bill to add the LGBT community to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and see how many members from each Caucus sign on as co-sponsors"
Something that should be done but unfortunately won't, given the current makeup of Congress and the unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans coming mostly from the right.
Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
Why would anyone want to kick good, decent 'colored folk' out of a restaurant?True... like forcing people to associate with the sexual deviants and perverts we call the LGBT community...Yep those tolerate freedom loving progressives only say it is freedom if they can force you to do something against your will.
Most equal rights/anti-discrimination legislation is designed to make people do something against their will.
Like not letting you kick the colored people out of your restaurant.
Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice."A member of the H. of Rep. offer a bill to add the LGBT community to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and see how many members from each Caucus sign on as co-sponsors"
Something that should be done but unfortunately won't, given the current makeup of Congress and the unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans coming mostly from the right.Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
Choices regarding one's sexual behavior, are irrelevant to rules, regulations and laws regarding RACE.
Discrimination against people known for their poor choices, is a fundamental NECESSITY OF NATURE.
Nobody gives a rat's ass how a Sexual Deviant or a Sexual Pervert (LGBT) got that way.Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice."A member of the H. of Rep. offer a bill to add the LGBT community to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and see how many members from each Caucus sign on as co-sponsors"
Something that should be done but unfortunately won't, given the current makeup of Congress and the unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans coming mostly from the right.Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
Choices regarding one's sexual behavior, are irrelevant to rules, regulations and laws regarding RACE.
Discrimination against people known for their poor choices, is a fundamental NECESSITY OF NATURE.
In most, but not all, cases.Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice."A member of the H. of Rep. offer a bill to add the LGBT community to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and see how many members from each Caucus sign on as co-sponsors"
Something that should be done but unfortunately won't, given the current makeup of Congress and the unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans coming mostly from the right.Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
Choices regarding one's sexual behavior, are irrelevant to rules, regulations and laws regarding RACE.
Discrimination against people known for their poor choices, is a fundamental NECESSITY OF NATURE.
Actually, that's an important field of study. Some of them, not your average gay person however, do a lot of damage.Nobody gives a rat's ass how a Sexual Deviant or a Sexual Pervert (LGBT) got that way.Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice."A member of the H. of Rep. offer a bill to add the LGBT community to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and see how many members from each Caucus sign on as co-sponsors"
Something that should be done but unfortunately won't, given the current makeup of Congress and the unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans coming mostly from the right.Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
Choices regarding one's sexual behavior, are irrelevant to rules, regulations and laws regarding RACE.
Discrimination against people known for their poor choices, is a fundamental NECESSITY OF NATURE.
Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law
WASHINGTON -- Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) will sign an executive order on Monday barring state-funded travel to Indiana because of the state's new law that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.
More: Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law
Thank you, Governor Malloy, for sending a clear message to these Indiana bigots.
Why would anyone want to kick good, decent 'colored folk' out of a restaurant?True... like forcing people to associate with the sexual deviants and perverts we call the LGBT community...Yep those tolerate freedom loving progressives only say it is freedom if they can force you to do something against your will.
Most equal rights/anti-discrimination legislation is designed to make people do something against their will.
Like not letting you kick the colored people out of your restaurant.
Sexual deviants and perverts, on the other hand...?
Like not letting you kick the colored people out of your restaurant.
Please do, the lawyers will be thrilled.Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law
WASHINGTON -- Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) will sign an executive order on Monday barring state-funded travel to Indiana because of the state's new law that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.
More: Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law
Thank you, Governor Malloy, for sending a clear message to these Indiana bigots.
A bunch of stupid ass Democrat Connecticut bureaucrats won't be going to Indiana. Sounds good to me.
It looks like the bill is having a very positive outcome.
Fewer queers and fewer Moon Bats in the state. We need to get one of those bills passed here in Florida.
