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

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice.

Nobody gives a rat's ass how a Sexual Deviant or a Sexual Pervert (LGBT) got that way.

I think Governor Pence should be honest and speak in the sort of terms you do,

I mean, if he's going to 'clarify' what the law means.

 

[Kondor3]

...Those who believe their version of Christianity believes in racial separation.

I am not aware of any substantive element within organized Christianity that believes in racial separation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like not letting you kick the colored people out of your restaurant.

Colored people are going to be the same color everyday. Choosing to not be that color is not an option for colored people. Unlike the sexually abnormal, who CHOOSE to behave the way THEY BEHAVE.

You see scamp, valid law does not speak to one's predilections... Valid Law ONLY speaks to one's CHOICES.

Every FIBER of your BEING can be telling you to push the accelerator down until your speeding down the highway at 200 MPH... You NEED FOR SPEED has been consistently deemed irrelevant where individuals are charged with exceeding the LEGAL LIMIT ON SPEED.

Same is true for one's NEED for $10,000 which required them to CHOOSE TO SHOVE A GUN IN A TELLERS FACE TO GET THAT SERIOUSLY NEEDED COIN FROM THE BANK.

One's natural desire for more than they have produced, has consistently been rejected as a valid defense.

Just as ONE'S DESIRE FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION WITH CHILDREN OR ANIMALS OR PEOPLE OF ONE'S OWN GENDER, has no bearing on one CHOOSING TO FULFILL THAT DESIRE.

And none of that has ANY bearing on one's RIGHT, disembodied from ANY SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY, to DEMAND that crucial public standards be lowered to offer the illusion that such choices are legitimate.

And that's all we're discussing here... without regard to the rationalizations which seek to make irrelevancy APPEAR relevant.

Homosexual sex between consenting adults is legal.

Does the Indiana law prevent someone from using religion as a reason not to do business with a colored person?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...Those who believe their version of Christianity believes in racial separation.

I am not aware of any substantive element within organized Christianity that believes in racial separation.

This Christian church believed in it, but bowed to criticism and decided to pretend they didn't:

All-white Kentucky church reverses ban on interracial couples - CSMonitor.com

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexual sex between consenting adults is legal.

So you're saying then that Homosexual behavior which occurred prior to the dropping of Laws which made it illegal, was wrong? Thus by logical extension, you're saying that it was wrong to remove those laws, providing for the acceptance of behavior which was wrong?

OH! Well... welcome back.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...Those who believe their version of Christianity believes in racial separation.

I am not aware of any substantive element within organized Christianity that believes in racial separation.

That's because there is not. The idiot will of course take some local church and claim that it's local interpretation, which is an extension of that regional culture, as an example proving that Christ said Blacks should sit in the back of the church.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the fundamental elements of socialism.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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?

How are Christians harmed?

It's a violation of their conscience. Isnt that obvious?

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?

Sorry but who are you to dictate what Christian faith consists of?

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.

I'm sorry for my confusion.

You werent taught much, were you? You certainly werent taught that other people's beliefs are none of your beeswax.

 

[The Rabbi]

THE RABBI SAID:

“It's a violation of their conscience. Isnt that obvious?”

What's obvious is that public accommodations laws are not a 'violation' of anyone's conscience.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory, just and proper measures whose sole intent is to regulate commerce, not 'violate' religious practice. That some might perceive public accommodations laws as 'violating' religious liberty is subjective and incorrect.

Of course they are. That was the whole point, dimwit.

 

[Flash]

[

Does the Indiana law prevent someone from using religion as a reason not to do business with a colored person?

Why does anyone need the government telling them who they have to associate with? Why don't you believe in freedom?

 

[The Rabbi]

"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.

Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice.

Bullshit.
Leonard Bernstein was married for over 20 years to a woman and had children with her. He dumped her (while she was dying of cancer) and moved in with his boyfriend. Yeah he made that choice.

 

[jillian]

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.

They WANT the right to discriminate racially. That's what they mean when they say a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

They are not comfortable living in modern American, to put it another way.

yup. they say it's about "freedom of religion" but what it really is is them once again demanding the right to put up signs that say "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

 

[jillian]

[

Does the Indiana law prevent someone from using religion as a reason not to do business with a colored person?

Why does anyone need the government telling them who they have to associate with? Why don't you believe in freedom?

your freedom ends at the tip of my nose.

I'm going to bet that if a black business refused to serve whites, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

get over it.

 

[The Rabbi]

...Those who believe their version of Christianity believes in racial separation.

I am not aware of any substantive element within organized Christianity that believes in racial separation.

This Christian church believed in it, but bowed to criticism and decided to pretend they didn't:

All-white Kentucky church reverses ban on interracial couples - CSMonitor.com

We can add the word "substantive" to the long list of words you dont understand.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

They WANT the right to discriminate racially. That's what they mean when they say a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

They are not comfortable living in modern American, to put it another way.

yup. they say it's about "freedom of religion" but what it really is is them once again demanding the right to put up signs that say "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

25 states and the federal gov't have exactly the same law. And those laws have been in force for 20 years. Please post the pics of those signs, "counselor".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"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.

Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice.

Sexual orientation is not BEHAVIOR. One may be predisposed to kill helpless animals. But where one turns from such instincts and as a result, does not injure defenseless animals... one separates one's self from those who EMBRACE THOSE INSTINCTS... and they do so, through their CHOICE TO NOT be a PSYCHOPATH.

See how that works?

 

[The Rabbi]

[

Does the Indiana law prevent someone from using religion as a reason not to do business with a colored person?

Why does anyone need the government telling them who they have to associate with? Why don't you believe in freedom?

your freedom ends at the tip of my nose.

I'm going to bet that if a black business refused to serve whites, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

get over it.

Your right to dictate how I run my business ends at my doorstep.
Black businesses regularly do that, btw.

 

[Nosmo King]

Is baking a cake or arringing flowers a religious rite?

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?

How are Christians harmed?

It's a violation of their conscience. Isnt that obvious?

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?

Sorry but who are you to dictate what Christian faith consists of?

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.

I'm sorry for my confusion.

You werent taught much, were you? You certainly werent taught that other people's beliefs are none of your beeswax.

Right . Until those 'beliefs' impact the freedom of others.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is baking a cake or arringing flowers a religious rite?

It's a violation of their conscience. Isnt that obvious?

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?

Sorry but who are you to dictate what Christian faith consists of?

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.

I'm sorry for my confusion.

You werent taught much, were you? You certainly werent taught that other people's beliefs are none of your beeswax.

Right . Until those 'beliefs' impact the freedom of others.

No, but a wedding is. OR did you miss that part?
There is no impact on the freedom of others. The lesbian couple in Oregon were free to hire anyone else they wanted.

 

[Nosmo King]

"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.

Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice.

Sexual orientation is not BEHAVIOR. One may be predisposed to kill helpless animals. But where one turns from such instincts and as a result, does not injure defenseless animals... one separates one's self from those who EMBRACE THOSE INSTINCTS... and they do so, through their CHOICE TO NOT be a PSYCHOPATH.

See how that works?

Comparing homosexuality with psychopathological behavior? Really?

 

[Nosmo King]

Is baking a cake or arringing flowers a religious rite?

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?

Sorry but who are you to dictate what Christian faith consists of?

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.

I'm sorry for my confusion.

You werent taught much, were you? You certainly werent taught that other people's beliefs are none of your beeswax.

Right . Until those 'beliefs' impact the freedom of others.

No, but a wedding is. OR did you miss that part?
There is no impact on the freedom of others. The lesbian couple in Oregon were free to hire anyone else they wanted.

So baking a cake is not a religious act, but a wedding is.

Are bakers participating in the wedding, given that the axct of baking is not a religious rite?