View Full Version : What's the big deal with this whole Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration law?
skijunkie55
03-31-15, 09:54
Ok, I'm seriously trying to find the rational thinking here from both sides.
Private business: We don't want to be threatened with lawsuits when we refuse service to customers based on our religious beliefs ie. the bakers, photographers, etc who have been sued by gay couples for refusing to participate in their "special day." Apparently there is a lack of gay cake makers and photographers in the US? Government needs to stay out of private business.
LGBT community: You passed a law that allows businesses to discriminate against us!
So here are some hypothetical yet very real situations that could occur if this law gets repealed, which is what the left is pushing for:
1. NAMBLA now wants to hold a social gathering at your gay establishment. They believe pedophilia is perfectly normal, and obviously they are all gay. Who knows, maybe these men haven't even committed a crime but want to talk about their love for children. Why should some archaic laws dictate who you are allowed to love? If the individual consents, they should have that choice. You as a married gay man with kids decide "i don't agree with pedophilia, so therefore I will not allow them to host an event in my establishment!" Based on allowed precedent, lawsuit is feasible.
2. You own a t-shirt shop. Client comes in and wants to have some shirts done with some very strong profane language regarding an issue. He's within his first amendment rights, has appropriate permits for a demonstration, etc. Maybe he's a KKK member, maybe black panther party, LGBT, etc. You believe that God's word simply says "let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth" and therefore do not want your product to carry their message, but you are the only T-shirt shop in town. What's to stop a lawsuit here?
Only posting this because one of my favorite places in West Michigan jumped on the LGBT bandwagon. Unfortunately, I am likely to go down the street now for dinner because they felt the need to hitch their wagon to the wrong pony.
http://woodtv.com/2015/03/30/hopcat-owner-indy-restaurant-open-to-all/
There really is no big deal as far as I can tell. I believe that 19 other states have similar laws. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, therefore IMO, the federal government has no right to mandate one way or the other. Leave it to the states. There is however, the First Amendment protecting the freedom of religion. As a Christian I don't agree with what these businesses are doing in the name of Christ even though I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but it is their right to do so. There are so many other people getting married that, Biblically, they could refuse service to yet don't. I know what the old testament says, but I also know what Jesus commanded us to do.
skijunkie55
03-31-15, 10:57
NCAA is threatening to pullout of hosting the tournament there in the future and re-locating HQ.
CT Governor, Washington Governor, Seattle Mayor have issued state-funded travel bans to Indiana.
CEO's are threatening to close up shop and leave.
People WANT this to be an issue because that tiny 1% of society demands it.
Averageman
03-31-15, 11:04
I think most of the hate is being generated by folks on social media who haven't taken the time to actually look at the Law as written.
The idea that we all have rights and as long as I do not impose myself on your freedom's, why should you be allowed to impose upon mine? In other words if I sell you flowers for your home it has no bearing on my religion, if you ask me to sell you flowers for your gay wedding, if my beliefs wont allow me to support gay marriage, then I have the right to refuse service.
Sounds simple to me.
The issue seems to be that if I refuse you service for any reason, then I am imposing on your rights. That simply becomes an issue when your intent comes in to conflict with my religious beliefs.
This isn't in fact a bias based upon your sexuality, it is a bias based upon the commandments or doctrine of ones own personal religious beliefs and practices. Equal freedoms seem to scare the LGBT community.
Well that and it's a cool way for minor celebrities to get some face time on the News.
LGBT people are hysterical that anyone would dare assert their right to not perform a service, like baking a cake, for them.
brickboy240
03-31-15, 11:15
This is a classic case of "careful what laws you write"
Clinton passed this (...with Democratic support) back in the 90s to allow Indians to smoke peyote.
They never guessed that this same law would be used to disallow a person from serving a gay person because this goes against THEIR religious beliefs.
There is nobody "hating" anyone else...that is just bunk.
With all the real problems facing our country...this is a total non-issue that is being whipped up into a controversy.
sevenhelmet
03-31-15, 11:35
Whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?
Gub'ment needs to GTFO of this situation, IMO. The "equality" crowd doesn't actually want equality- they want their minority to be put above all others.
It's a tough world to be a white Christian heterosexual male. I'm pretty much the root of all evil.
I think most of the hate is being generated by folks on social media who haven't taken the time to actually look at the Law as written.
This exactly. All it does is guarantee someone with a religious objection a day in court and requires the gov't have a compelling interest in the law/regulation and that it's the least burdensome method of meeting that interest. Historically, very few court cases brought under RFRA statutes have prevailed over the gov't interest.
Secondly, the same groups that foam at the mouth over a Christian refusing to service a gay wedding, would be abhored if a Jewish or Muslim butcher were required to provide pork sausage for a function.
Thirdly, the attempt is made to parallel this with Jim Crow and refusing to serve blacks at the lunch counter etc etc. They forget Jim Crow was enforced by the gov't and the miss the distinction that people are not refusing to serve gays entirely, they're simply refusing to participate in their wedding.
This is all pushback on that gay couple (and later the courts) trying to force a baker to bake a cake for them, when there were plenty of other bakers in town who would have been willing to do it. Think of how much hot air would have been saved if the courts had stayed the hell out of it...
There really is no big deal as far as I can tell. I believe that 19 other states have similar laws. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, therefore IMO, the federal government has no right to mandate one way or the other. Leave it to the states. There is however, the First Amendment protecting the freedom of religion. As a Christian I don't agree with what these businesses are doing in the name of Christ even though I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but it is their right to do so. There are so many other people getting married that, Biblically, they could refuse service to yet don't. I know what the old testament says, but I also know what Jesus commanded us to do.
Jesus addressed sexual immorality:
What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (NIV, Mark 7:20-23)
TriviaMonster
03-31-15, 13:31
Let's see how the left feels when a Jew walks into a Muslim owned t shirt company and wants a shirt that depicts Mo on the front.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-31-15, 13:33
What is actually in the law? I see fifteen minute reports about it, but all they talk about is discrimination, not what the law actually says.
Frickn' NASCAR came out against the law- all is a lost- but maybe they thought it would protect inbreeding.
If I were a wedding photographer, I'd show up and not shut up about how it was immoral. Let them even try the "If anyone has any reason..." line.
The LGBT extremists have gone past the anti-discrimination to making it so that you can't hold the personal belief that their 'lifestyle' is immoral. You have to accept them, or else the gay mafia will make you a wine spritzer you can't refuse. They need to solidify these gains before the start down the tranny acceptance path. It's all getting a beach head to eventually forcing churches to renounce the teachings against homosexuality- or else face being ostracized. If you can get Churches to renege on the gay thing, you effectively made them irrelevant- if you can walk back that position, all the rest about the divine nature of God is a cakewalk.
This was never about cake, it was about silencing opposition and removing societal norms.
brickboy240
03-31-15, 13:38
Proof positive that the left is not really all that supportive of free speech or the First Amendment.
They were all for it when it meant supporting Larry Flynt or the civil rights movement but when it was applied to Christians...not so much.
Hey..I don't care if gay people get married or not and don't think the state should be in the marriage biz but if you read this law...it is very hard to come away with a feeling this law is discriminatory.
It has been a disaster for our state. There are other states with similar laws however there are a few differences. First of all is when they were passed. Public opinion has changed in the last 20 years. The majority support LGBT rights, which is really what this law is targeting. Secondly many of the other states that have similar laws also have protections for such groups where Indiana does not. They try to claim this law isn't targeted but one only has to look at the driving minds behind it to see some of the most adamant anti LGBT minds in the country.
Now as for me personally, I am not opposed to the law. However I do feel there needs to be protections included for minorities.
Regardless of the original intent the law was ill conceived and rushed through against broad bi-partisan opposition. It was signed less than a week ago and the repercussions are already staggering. Saleforce, Angies list, the NCAA, NASCAR, Cummins, Eli Lily, and many others have come out strong against it. With many of them already canceling planned expansions. Not to mention at least two huge conventions that have pulled out of Indianapolis.
At the same time the mayor of Indy who is a Republican, and the city council have already came out strongly against it with the mayor signing an order telling city employees to ignore the law.
From my part of the state the reaction has been similar. All but the most evangelical people down here oppose it.
We are not against the idea of protecting a persons faith. We are against businesses being allowed to discriminate.
In the end this has been a debacle of biblical proportions and they are going to have to fix it fast. The simple fix seems to be amending it with anti discriminatory language.
IT BANS GAY PEOPLE...oh wait it doesn't.
Everyone should LOVE this law. It positively identifies every PRIVATE BUSINESS that doesn't support the gay agenda. Rather than exclaim "FABULOUS" and know where to NOT spend their money they want to punish any business that dares not love the gay agenda.
Jesus addressed sexual immorality:
What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (NIV, Mark 7:20-23)
I know that Jesus spoke of sexual immorality. My point is that most judge not out of love, and that most judge without accounting for their own sins. I think that these shops would have a greater impact in peoples lives (and less of a chance of a lawsuit) if they would state their objection to what they are doing and ask them, with this objection, if they still want them to perform the service. If they say yes, it then gives you more opportunities to carry on a discussion with them. IMO, simply refusing service is the easy way out.
brickboy240
03-31-15, 14:18
Would our founders have thought it great to have government force one private citizen to conduct business with another private citizen?
This is the question we all should be asking.
The majority support LGBT rights, which is really what this law is targeting.
Secondly many of the other states that have similar laws also have protections for such groups where Indiana does not. They try to claim this law isn't targeted but one only has to look at the driving minds behind it to see some of the most adamant anti LGBT minds in the country.
Now as for me personally, I am not opposed to the law. However I do feel there needs to be protections included for minorities.
Regardless of the original intent the law was ill conceived and rushed through against broad bi-partisan opposition.
It was signed less than a week ago and the repercussions are already staggering. Saleforce, Angies list, the NCAA, NASCAR, Cummins, Eli Lily, and many others have come out strong against it. With many of them already canceling planned expansions. Not to mention at least two huge conventions that have pulled out of Indianapolis.
At the same time the mayor of Indy who is a Republican, and the city council have already came out strongly against it with the mayor signing an order telling city employees to ignore the law.
From my part of the state the reaction has been similar. All but the most evangelical people down here oppose it.
We are not against the idea of protecting a persons faith. We are against businesses being allowed to discriminate.
In the end this has been a debacle of biblical proportions and they are going to have to fix it fast. The simple fix seems to be amending it with anti discriminatory language.
How exactly is this law targeting LGBT rights? Follow on question: why was there not widespread discrimination in Indiana prior to last week? This doesn't empower anyone to wake up today and say "Finally, I get to stick it to the queers!!!" If anyone was so inclined, they freely could have done so under Indiana law previously.
The government has to have a compelling interest and the least restrictive means to substantially burden the exercise of religious liberty. That's all it says.
This isn't Obamacare that no one had a chance to read. This is a short bill, the operative text of which is a virtual word for word copy from the federal RFRA (passed with 3 dissenting votes from the entirety of the US Congress) and many of the state versions.
The public statements by all of those groups you mentioned are nothing more than hypocritical reactionary uninformed BS, many probably only to placate the outrage whores on Twitter who have nothing better to do than sit around and bitch about stuff all day. NASCAR, for instance, essentially stated today that they would not be banning gays from their races. WTF? How is that a response? It's a total non-sequitur.
What is actually in the law? I see fifteen minute reports about it, but all they talk about is discrimination, not what the law actually says.
Full text here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/
Most important part (most of the rest of it is definitions and outlining procedural recourse):
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity 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.
More on the federal law its modeled after.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416160/indiana-protecting-discrimination-josh-blackman
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-31-15, 18:06
Full text here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/
Most important part (most of the rest of it is definitions and outlining procedural recourse):
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity 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.
OH MY GOD THAT IS AWFUL!!! The humanity, the depraved GOP.....
....seriously, I don't get it. I expected something about banning the color pink or capris on men. This is what has everyone in an uproar? Kristallnicht it ain't.
A few thoughts:
1) why would someone want to force a business to work for them if the business didnt want to?
2) why would anyone want to pay someone money if they truly believe they "hate" them or want to "descriminate against them"?
3) why should any person business or entity be legally compelled to provide services or products to someone they do not wish to? Obvious exception being medical, police, fire, etc...
4) how the **** does the 1% of the population that the homosexuals make up control so much of what's going on?
5) how is "to cake, or not to cake" important in any way shape or form compared to the real issues facing this nation?
If I don't want to work for or with you, **** off. If you don't want to work for or with me- **** off.
Is that really so hard to grasp? It would be like trying to force an employer to hire you when they don't want to. Or to force someone to be employed by you if they don't want to?
I would actually prefer to know who is and isn't anti this or pro that so I can choose with my pocket book who to support that is in line with my ideals.
Things are so maddening these days. The unimportant crap gets all the attention and the important shit is lost in the background!
It's like we are all on a carnival ride that caught fire; and instead of trying to put out the flames- most everyone is trying to change a light bulb that went out! It's absolutely ludicrous!
What the hell happened to freedom?
The left never misses an opportunity to bash the right even if they have to lie and create a false narrative to do it. After Ferguson, they know few will fact check, 99% will just pile on-board with the false narrative. It also does not help the Governor looked like a doofus with Stef.
Averageman
03-31-15, 18:58
It has been a disaster for our state. There are other states with similar laws however there are a few differences. First of all is when they were passed. Public opinion has changed in the last 20 years. The majority support LGBT rights, which is really what this law is targeting. Secondly many of the other states that have similar laws also have protections for such groups where Indiana does not. They try to claim this law isn't targeted but one only has to look at the driving minds behind it to see some of the most adamant anti LGBT minds in the country.
Now as for me personally, I am not opposed to the law. However I do feel there needs to be protections included for minorities.
Regardless of the original intent the law was ill conceived and rushed through against broad bi-partisan opposition. It was signed less than a week ago and the repercussions are already staggering. Saleforce, Angies list, the NCAA, NASCAR, Cummins, Eli Lily, and many others have come out strong against it. With many of them already canceling planned expansions. Not to mention at least two huge conventions that have pulled out of Indianapolis.
At the same time the mayor of Indy who is a Republican, and the city council have already came out strongly against it with the mayor signing an order telling city employees to ignore the law.
From my part of the state the reaction has been similar. All but the most evangelical people down here oppose it.
We are not against the idea of protecting a persons faith. We are against businesses being allowed to discriminate.
In the end this has been a debacle of biblical proportions and they are going to have to fix it fast. The simple fix seems to be amending it with anti discriminatory language.
No, really Dude, you don't get it.
I don't care what "rights" you think you have, they don't trump mine. You wanna be Gay, go ahead, just don't legislate that I participate in your "Gayness."
Some folks have a religious belief that holds them accountable for their actions they should have the same freedoms as those in a small percentage who feel the need or desire to be homosexual.
The law only prevents Homosexuals from forcing homosexuality upon those who have a deep seated belief against it from participating in Homosexuality.
Could you force or should you force someone of the Islamic or Jewish faith to make you a pulled pork sammich?
We are not against the idea of protecting a persons faith. We are against businesses being allowed to discriminate.
Can you name any business that openly discriminates on any major identifier? Not just in Indiana but anywhere in the USA? Other than the NAACP, I already know about them. Separate but equal restrooms do not count either.
Arkansas just passed a similar law today. How come no outrage their?
Seems people are getting spun up over nothing.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-31-15, 19:07
So, they can force a baker to show up with a cake and a photographer to take pictures at their little ceremony- but if a HS valedictorian wants to thank God, that is too over the top.
You can thank Harvey Milk, Joseph Stalin and Che- but Jesus is a no go.....
All while kids out in Cali can't wear american flag shirts so as not to rile up the (non)natives.
No, really Dude, you don't get it.
I don't care what "rights" you think you have, they don't trump mine. You wanna be Gay, go ahead, just don't legislate that I participate in your "Gayness."
Some folks have a religious belief that holds them accountable for their actions they should have the same freedoms as those in a small percentage who feel the need or desire to be homosexual.
The law only prevents Homosexuals from forcing homosexuality upon those who have a deep seated belief against it from participating in Homosexuality.
Could you force or should you force someone of the Islamic or Jewish faith to make you a pulled pork sammich?
There is a difference between asking a business to do something they don't normally do and provide the same service they normally do. We have Anti Discrimination laws because of the actions of many businesses in the past. They openly discriminated against minorities and it was accepted by society. i know many people rankle at any government intervention with anything but in some cases there is a valid reason they do it.
I have to wonder how you see anti discrimination laws as "forcing" their homosexuality on another person. That is like saying The civil rights act forces blackness on others. it makes no sense.
in the end it doesn't matter. We are not far off in the country from Sexual orientation being added to the national laws. That will end the issue for good.
As for the state, the governor has already started to backpedal. I was on a conference call with a number of GOP district chairmen and operatives today. it was split about 50/50 on the law itself but pretty much everyone agreed that something needs to be done to clarify the issue and work on undoing the damage.
Can you name any business that openly discriminates on any major identifier? Not just in Indiana but anywhere in the USA? Other than the NAACP, I already know about them. Separate but equal restrooms do not count either.
Arkansas just passed a similar law today. How come no outrage their?
Seems people are getting spun up over nothing.
I am not familiar with the Arkansas law. I know it passed but don't know the wording. It is possible that it isn't as vaguely written or includes anti discriminatory language already.
The legislature was warned how badly this would go. They consulted with attorneys and were sent a letter by another group saying that the way it was written would be a problem. They ignored it.
Legal experts had this to say about it:
That said, we have several concerns with the language of the proposed Religious Freedom
Restoration Acts (RFRA). The first rests primarily in the way in which they expand the
protection of religious liberty rights by unsettling a finely tuned harmony between religious
liberty and other rights secured by the Indiana Constitution and laws. Although some proponents
of the legislation maintain that the proposed RFRAs offers a modest and reasoned method to
secure rights to religious liberty in Indiana, it is our expert opinion that the proposals, if adopted,
would amount to an over-correction in protecting important religious liberty rights, thereby
destroying a well-established harmony struck in Indiana law between these important rights and
other rights secured under the Indiana Constitution and statutes.
............., they know few will fact check, 99% will just pile on-board with the false narrative.
Unfortunately true and a sad commentary on humanity.
Jesus addressed sexual immorality:
What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (NIV, Mark 7:20-23)
He did indeed say that, then a little bit later, in a different Gospel:
Matthew 22:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Then a short time later he backed it all up on the Cross, where He died for all our sins.
Flip back about 900 pages and you find this, from his Dad:
Leviticus 19:18 - Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
I'm of the opinion that the Bible is a love story about God's love and concern for each one of us. He wants us to be in fellowship with Him, and to obey Him. Why? Because like any father He wants what is best for his children. That is love. And that is the theme of the Bible, not hate.
Both sides of the set-to in Indiana should listen to that message.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-15, 02:53
He did indeed say that, then a little bit later, in a different Gospel:
Matthew 22:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Then a short time later he backed it all up on the Cross, where He died for all our sins.
Flip back about 900 pages and you find this, from his Dad:
Leviticus 19:18 - Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
I'm of the opinion that the Bible is a love story about God's love and concern for each one of us. He wants us to be in fellowship with Him, and to obey Him. Why? Because like any father He wants what is best for his children. That is love. And that is the theme of the Bible, not hate.
Both sides of the set-to in Indiana should listen to that message.
OOOOkkayyy,
Jesus never dealt with community organizers from the south side of Chicago. These guys have power the Romans would have denied the gods.
Seriously, that is an incredibly naive viewpoint as progressives try to tear down the very fabric of our society and country.
Love the sinner hate the sin, but here the sinners are DEMANDING that you look at sinful acts and say that it's normal, moral and good.
Funny that you didn't start at 19:17. I'm no Bible scholar, but apply that here and you'll find yourself knee-deep in lawsuits.
Don't shit in my hat and call it diversity.
This all started with the Texas law on sodomy and Santorum was widely ridiculed for foreseeing what is happening right now. Back then it was, "Why do you care what happens in the bedroom?". Now we have those same people showing up demanding a cake to celebrate it.
Of all the problems in the world, everyone has their thongs in a bunch over this silly law? Seriously?
And by the way, they didn't just stumble into these bakeries. The gay mafia targeted them as examples. No one cares if you buy a cupcake, but they know that they would get push back.
Frankly, if I were a baker, I'd stock just man and woman cake toppings and tell the gays, sorry we don't carry that. You can't make a kosher deli sell pork chops.
Averageman
04-01-15, 06:05
There is a difference between asking a business to do something they don't normally do and provide the same service they normally do. We have Anti Discrimination laws because of the actions of many businesses in the past. They openly discriminated against minorities and it was accepted by society. i know many people rankle at any government intervention with anything but in some cases there is a valid reason they do it.
I have to wonder how you see anti discrimination laws as "forcing" their homosexuality on another person. That is like saying The civil rights act forces blackness on others. it makes no sense.
in the end it doesn't matter. We are not far off in the country from Sexual orientation being added to the national laws. That will end the issue for good.
As for the state, the governor has already started to backpedal. I was on a conference call with a number of GOP district chairmen and operatives today. it was split about 50/50 on the law itself but pretty much everyone agreed that something needs to be done to clarify the issue and work on undoing the damage.
The line is drawn when you ask me to perform a service that would include my participation in what my faith would consider a sin.
Trying to paint this with the "civil rights" paint brush doesn't even come close. If you cannot see it, I'm not sure how much clearer it can be made for you.
Some people will find homosexuality a sin, if the service their business provides requires their participation in what they feel is a "sinful act" they just are asking to politely bow out and recommend someone else.
In many of these cases there has been no small amount of "fishing" by the LGBT community to create an issue by going to people of faith and demanding service.
This is not like telling someone they can't eat at your business, they come in, eat and leave, no sin.
If this has to be worked over by a bunch of Republicans to clarify the stance they are taking I would really suggest they need to elect some smarter folks, it isn't that difficult.
There is a difference between asking a business to do something they don't normally do and provide the same service they normally do. We have Anti Discrimination laws because of the actions of many businesses in the past. They openly discriminated against minorities and it was accepted by society. i know many people rankle at any government intervention with anything but in some cases there is a valid reason they do it.
I'll repeat what I asked earlier in the thread: why hasn't there been discrimination in Indiana? Homosexuals are not and have not been a "protected class" in Indiana.
This isn't Birmingham in 1954 we're talking about here; the overwhelming majority of photographers, bakers, whatever else are willing to perform their services for gay ceremonies. The ones that don't want to should not be compelled to and quite frankly those seeking their services shouldn't want them to.
Crow Hunter
04-01-15, 09:36
THE CAKE IS A LIE!
:o
Not sure why folks are upset. I don't interpret the law as allowing for folks to discriminate against gays. The same arguments are made supporting the banning of guns from private property. If a private business can ban me from entering with my gun because they don't like my gun then the same business should be able to do the same to gays.
Unless there was a wide spread anti gay bakers union movement to not bake gay wedding cakes then they can take their business to the next baker like me and my gun do.
If I were gay I'd look at this in the same light as I look at the anti gun signs. Clear indicators for who to never support or piss on if hey we're on fire.
brickboy240
04-01-15, 10:38
Well...many gay activists don't see it that way. Nope...they cannot just take their business elsewhere and go on with their lives...no sir! They have to lawyer up and beat others over the head until they change their ways. Why they operate like this is beyond me. If I knew for a fact that a business was openly anti-gun...I might choose to take my business elsewhere.
If I walked up to a store and saw Obama or Hillary signs in their windows...I'd go somewhere else...not race in and demand they change their signs or views. Screw them...I will spend my money somewhere else.
The gays should do the same thing.
The left talks a good game about "tolerance" but they never really live it...do they?
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-15, 11:50
The gays should do the same thing.
Gays are what, 1-5% of the population? They can't effect anything with a dollar, they have to do it in the court room.
It ain't about cake. The gay mafia, and by that I don't mean the far majority of gays, want to beat down any dissent to their lifestyles. Why? Tearing down the social order may be the thrust of the nihilists among them. Some kind of seeking societal approval. One step closer to attacking the Church directly to make it irrelevant. Who knows.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-15, 11:51
Mike Pence just announced that he is gay!!!!
This all may be as simple as this headline:
The Week Mike Pence’s 2016 Dreams Crumbled
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/mike-pence-indiana-2016-116569.html#.VRwiofnF91Y
Not sure why folks are upset. I don't interpret the law as allowing for folks to discriminate against gays. The same arguments are made supporting the banning of guns from private property. If a private business can ban me from entering with my gun because they don't like my gun then the same business should be able to do the same to gays.
And blacks? Or mixed race couples or women? Maybe people under 5'0"? We can't have it both ways. Either a private institution has the right to ban anyone they see fit, or they don't. If it's no to blacks and women, but yes to gun owners and gays, then there's a total failure of continuity there.
Unless there was a wide spread anti gay bakers union movement to not bake gay wedding cakes then they can take their business to the next baker like me and my gun do.
If I were gay I'd look at this in the same light as I look at the anti gun signs. Clear indicators for who to never support or piss on if hey we're on fire.
Ditto here, and and even though I'm not gay, I'd still take my business to another place because I don't want to support denying service to gay people. But we still have to decide on the larger issue: does a private business have the right to deny service to whom ever they see fit (blacks, gays, women, gun owners, midgets, etc) or not? If the answer is not, than people better stop picking and choosing.
I'm open to the concept of either, but what we have is not working. Or, is the exception strictly if the business bans X due to religious grounds? If so, could the business bad those of other religions they think are a sin and or have practices they decide are a sin? That would get messy real fast when Some Christian or Muslim owned business decided to ban X religions from their establishment, etc.
I'd think the Libertarian approach would be to allow a private business to ban anyone they didn't want to to business with, and let market forces dictate the outcome.
since I am a photographer hearing what private pro photo boards are saying is scary
I remember a while back a photographer posted a shot of a couple with some nice shotguns they were bird hunters and proud of it
many on the forum were saying things like how scary that wedding must have been thinking you can die any moment etc... was hilarious quite a few responded with I would not have done that !!!! and I am amazed someone did not die at that wedding etc....
what I hope is some KKK folks show up to some photographers and demand they take there wedding vows and see what happens
or go to some massive anti gun photographer (most of them) and demand they show up at the skeet range to shoot there ceremony and those groups start suing the pants off of photographers and other wedding types who wont comply or say we are also going to be having fresh turkey and chickens and rabbits which we will be butchering on site and want to make sure you get those festivities !
someone posted a guy calling gay bakers and asking for a cake then saying I want it to say I am against gays ! and of course he was refused over and over
these days the gay and pro gay crowd are the most vile and disgusting people purely based on the way they attack others now and demand you comply with them and accept them
again our country is heading down a scary path that will have bad consequences
this law again does not make it so you can refuse it just puts a check in place to see if you can deny based on religious values
being religious serving gays is a issue to some
denying based on color would be wrong
making a muslim go to a christian wedding could be wrong also and I am not pro muslim but believe they should be allowed to say no to others in this country
and as I say why do these folks do this just go elsewhere ? if anything it opens up a business opportunity to others to proudly say we love gays and will gladly serve you
muslims are demanding and winning in situations where things are not correct for them why are there foot washing stations at some airports now !!!!
do the catholics have a bowl of holy water ? NOPE
and should we then be able to say well we like to sacrafice goats and then spread the blood around so you have to take that wedding and shoot it to some vegan animal loving photographer ?
should a black baker be forced to provide cakes to the KKK or should he be able to say no ?
since KKK and gays are the same thing just people neither are a religion and the ones asking for service
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-15, 14:04
And blacks? Or mixed race couples or women? Maybe people under 5'0"? We can't have it both ways. Either a private institution has the right to ban anyone they see fit, or they don't. If it's no to blacks and women, but yes to gun owners and gays, then there's a total failure of continuity there.
This is why they had to get it so that gay wasn't a choice, its genetic or something. Gay is the new black in their eyes- and that is critical aspect. This is all a planned out progression and long term strategy of incrementalism. Something the left does well and the right does horribly. We go for broke and then go home.
Once again, this has nothing to do with gay people coming into a store and buying something. It is all about issues where a service company has involvement beyond a simple transaction. A jewish architect made to design a shrine to Hitler- for making efficient highways. Make an African-american carpenter make a wooden cross for a KKK states right campfire?
This is why they had to get it so that gay wasn't a choice, its genetic or something.
Religion is a choice, so is being in the KKK or other aspects people feel is important to them, so be it genetic or environment matters not. Do we narrow it down to those things we know people have no choice over, like color or height?
Gay is the new black in their eyes- and that is critical aspect. This is all a planned out progression and long term strategy of incrementalism. Something the left does well and the right does horribly. We go for broke and then go home.
Once again, this has nothing to do with gay people coming into a store and buying something. It is all about issues where a service company has involvement beyond a simple transaction. A jewish architect made to design a shrine to Hitler- for making efficient highways. Make an African-american carpenter make a wooden cross for a KKK states right campfire?
And I'd agree no church should ever be forced to perform a gay marriage but I'd still support same sex marriage done by the JOP or other churches that allow it. But as you say, in bold, what's the line there? That's something that would have to be defined specifically to hold up and not get abused by one side of the issues or other. For example, Is sitting down to the counter to eat beyond simple transaction to the business that does not wish to serve X persons?
skijunkie55
04-01-15, 15:24
So if homosexuality has been OK'd by society as a "genetic trait", where will they go next? Incest? Pedophilia? Bestiality? Perfectly acceptable in other parts of the world and at different times in history. Clearly there's something "different" in their genetic make-up that they're born with, so by default we should cut them some slack and ease up on laws that have been written to dissuade those CHOICES. While we're at it, I feel like a woman today so I'd like to have access to the local universities girls shower room. And if you deny my sexual identity I'm going to sue you.
^^^ This is where society is headed when we start making excuses for the choices people make for themselves.
Will stated it best, better than I did. We either have rights or we have privileges. A private person either has the right tell anyone to eff off or they do not. They don't need to give reason, just get out. AFAIC that applies to anything. Black, white male female whatever. I don't give a shit. A business that posts a no short white guys or no fat chicks or no fags probably won't be in business long cause folks like me will piss on them for being stupid. Sometimes you just need to give people some rope so they can hang themselves.
So if homosexuality has been OK'd by society as a "genetic trait", where will they go next? Incest? Pedophilia? Bestiality? Perfectly acceptable in other parts of the world and at different times in history. Clearly there's something "different" in their genetic make-up that they're born with, so by default we should cut them some slack and ease up on laws that have been written to dissuade those CHOICES. While we're at it, I feel like a woman today so I'd like to have access to the local universities girls shower room. And if you deny my sexual identity I'm going to sue you.
^^^ This is where society is headed when we start making excuses for the choices people make for themselves.
Are you not able to see the difference between something between two consenting adults with no negative consequences and things like bestiality or pedophilia?
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-15, 21:27
Are you not able to see the difference between something between two consenting adults with no negative consequences and things like bestiality or pedophilia?
Things on a list that would get you stoned in a lot of the world...
Maybe not bestiality, but you get the rest of the alphabet in LGBTIQwhatever- they keep adding on like C3 grew. Once it is all about contracts and not morality, it won't take long for prostitution (length of contract) and polygamy (who are you to tell me how many people I can love)-- those are pretty much slam dunks legally. Even BHOs solicitor general could win those at SCOTUS.
That people can't see the difference between tolerating someone and being asked to be involved in what most people consider to be immoral act is really troubling- all for something that doesn't even get much play in the bible because they probably didn't think it was really a question. Remember even CA voted to ban gay marriage- this would be nowhere without the courts. It would have been even less popular if all the shenanigans the gay mafia is pulling now were part of the original package. Sure, all these groups and corp come out in support- and it seems like there is overwhelming support- until you put people in a private voting booth...
Gays are like Cub's fans. Pretty sure that God isn't too happy with them, they are rooting for the wrong team, and there are a bunch of people in Cincy and STL that aren't big fans. Hell, I might even go see a Cub's game, but I'm not going to cheer for them or tell you that I think they are the winning team.
How's the economic recovery going for the inner city black kids?
skijunkie55
04-01-15, 22:03
Are you not able to see the difference between something between two consenting adults with no negative consequences and things like bestiality or pedophilia?
If one is truly "born" with that genetic disposition to want to love goats or kids, how's that different than someone who is gay? Or an addict? Or serial killer for that matter? I guess we need more gay people to donate their brains to science so we can actually find the sexuality switch?
Point being it's ALL a choice so this nonsense about being born gay so we have to accept it or else we're intolerant bigots has got to go. People chose these actions, just like they choose to bring about bogus lawsuits over cakes and photographs.
Am I for discrimination? Yup. I discriminate every day: recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. This outrage isn't about rights. It's about a small community of people lashing out because the bible says their lifestyle choice is naturally and morally wrong. If they don't believe the bible is Gods word, why do they make such a big deal about it? Because they know they're wrong and don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
At least that's my personal views on this matter... Lol. Private business? Do what you want. Government needs to take a hike.
So if homosexuality has been OK'd by society as a "genetic trait", where will they go next? Incest? Pedophilia? Bestiality? Perfectly acceptable in other parts of the world and at different times in history. Clearly there's something "different" in their genetic make-up that they're born with, so by default we should cut them some slack and ease up on laws that have been written to dissuade those CHOICES. While we're at it, I feel like a woman today so I'd like to have access to the local universities girls shower room. And if you deny my sexual identity I'm going to sue you.
^^^ This is where society is headed when we start making excuses for the choices people make for themselves.
Yep...next thing will be Pedophiles pleading for their equal rights to molest children.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-15, 22:32
Yep...next thing will be Pedophiles pleading for their equal rights to molest children.
No, tranny's are next- get in line....
Yep...next thing will be Pedophiles pleading for their equal rights to molest children.
If one is truly "born" with that genetic disposition to want to love goats or kids, how's that different than someone who is gay? Or an addict? Or serial killer for that matter? I guess we need more gay people to donate their brains to science so we can actually find the sexuality switch?
Look up the word "consent." It's VERY important to distinguish between what is and is not a crime.
Once it is all about contracts and not morality, it won't take long for prostitution (length of contract) and polygamy (who are you to tell me how many people I can love)-- those are pretty much slam dunks legally.
Prostitution should be legal in the rest of the country. Human trafficking should of course remain illegal.
I don't have a stance on polygamy to be honest. The way it's traditionally/stereotypically done is not ok, but with _consenting_ _adults_, it should be fine.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-15, 22:59
Look up the word "consent." It's VERY important to distinguish between what is and is not a crime.
So unless it is illegal, if you are in a service industry, you have to be fair game?
It used to be that we tried to legislate morality, we are now getting to the point that we are legislating immorality.
So unless it is illegal, if you are in a service industry, you have to be fair game?
It used to be that we tried to legislate morality, we are now getting to the point that we are legislating immorality.
While I'm usually very libertarian, I do think that it is very unamerican, unchristian, and should be illegal to discriminate based on how someone is born... Within reason. If you need a firefighter and the applicant was born without legs and arms and eyes, that's a good reason to say no. But refusing service because you're not the same race, not the same gender, not the same age, or not the same sexual orientation should be illegal.
For example, the cake thing in Colorado. They should be allowed to not make a particular cake design. But they shouldn't be allowed to deny the same service to a gay person that a straight couple would receive. So a giant penis cake would be able to be properly declined, but two names on a cake should not be declined. It's just a cake, it's not like they're asking you to participate in their bedroom.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-01-15, 23:56
Their are gay bakers all over wondering why none of their brothers will help them out.
It's always bakers and photographers- never florists getting sued.
I've shot some weddings. If it's two dudes there are no bridesmaids, that is a big disincentive for taking that job.
Actually, the 'penis cake' place makes the best birthday cakes here in Denver, you just want to leave the kids in the car so don't have to do any splaining about the bachlorette party cakes- and check the box before leaving.
PEOPLE ARE NOT BORN GAY !!!!!
its only a theory some have and like global warming the left runs with it as fact !!!!!
it is a choice ! just like some who choose and work on staying with one partner only and some want to run around with who ever and are fine with it
these are choices we make as a human
agree its just a cake so the gay people should just move on and then tell others to vote with there wallet and let the market decide who stays in business
Jesus could love and forgive a prostitute ! it does not mean he has to dive into her culture and help her continue working and provide clients for her and work with her etc... there is a HUGE difference
shot weddings for the last 15 years about 25-50 a year depending on what year :)
just tired of the wedding industry and only going to do small nice ones and do more portrait work :)
modern brides are a freaking nightmare :)
While I'm usually very libertarian, I do think that it is very unamerican, unchristian, and should be illegal to discriminate based on how someone is born... Within reason. If you need a firefighter and the applicant was born without legs and arms and eyes, that's a good reason to say no. But refusing service because you're not the same race, not the same gender, not the same age, or not the same sexual orientation should be illegal.
For example, the cake thing in Colorado. They should be allowed to not make a particular cake design. But they shouldn't be allowed to deny the same service to a gay person that a straight couple would receive. So a giant penis cake would be able to be properly declined, but two names on a cake should not be declined. It's just a cake, it's not like they're asking you to participate in their bedroom.
Their are gay bakers all over wondering why none of their brothers will help them out.
It's always bakers and photographers- never florists getting sued.
I've shot some weddings. If it's two dudes there are no bridesmaids, that is a big disincentive for taking that job.
Actually, the 'penis cake' place makes the best birthday cakes here in Denver, you just want to leave the kids in the car so don't have to do any splaining about the bachlorette party cakes- and check the box before leaving. Actually a florist was sued and she lost.. for now. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/23/florist-sued-for-refusing-service-to-gay-couple-pens-defiant-letter-rejecting-states-settlement-and-her-attorney-reveals-whats-next/
Moose-Knuckle
04-02-15, 03:06
NCAA is threatening to pullout of hosting the tournament there in the future and re-locating HQ.
CT Governor, Washington Governor, Seattle Mayor have issued state-funded travel bans to Indiana.
CEO's are threatening to close up shop and leave.
People WANT this to be an issue because that tiny 1% of society demands it.
Enter the "Gay Agenda" via social engineering. The "Gay Agenda" is not even being pushed by the LGBT community, 99% of those folks just want to live their lives and be left well alone. They don't want to be a poster child or a victim of society paraded around on the evening news. The progressive left uses them as useful idiots to implement their plans, acquire votes, all leading to the destruction of the moral fabric of our Republic which inevitably brings a downfall of society so they can reimagine one to their betters liking.
DreadPirateMoyer
04-02-15, 06:25
PEOPLE ARE NOT BORN GAY !!!!!
its only a theory some have and like global warming the left runs with it as fact !!!!!
Your well-supported and scientifically-cited argument has thoroughly convinced me. Man, I don't know how I ever believed otherwise. I'll make sure to tell this to my gay friends who have been obviously gay since pre-school, even before they could comprehend what that meant, and that all they have to do is choose to be attracted to the opposite sex like we've chosen, because why would anyone choose a lifestyle that leads to a vastly more difficult life due to societal norms and prejudices?
Phew. Glad you opened my eyes. I had no clue who I was attracted to was a choice. You're a savior!
Eurodriver
04-02-15, 06:53
No, tranny's are next- get in line....
:ph34r:
how about you post up that scientific proof because you would be the first person and be truly ground breaking
and until they/you can prove it then its a THEORY !!!!! just like global warming
I did not site any docs or support it ? I don't have to its out there all over the internet and many medical journals and edu research and other places that they cant find anything but are trying
Your well-supported and scientifically-cited argument has thoroughly convinced me. Man, I don't know how I ever believed otherwise. I'll make sure to tell this to my gay friends who have been obviously gay since pre-school, even before they could comprehend what that meant, and that all they have to do is choose to be attracted to the opposite sex like we've chosen, because why would anyone choose a lifestyle that leads to a vastly more difficult life due to societal norms and prejudices?
Phew. Glad you opened my eyes. I had no clue who I was attracted to was a choice. You're a savior!
sevenhelmet
04-02-15, 08:50
Honu, point taken- you can't abide gays, but please stop trolling for arguments. You aren't going to "prove" anything either way, and it's killing this thread.
Back on topic, what happened to the old "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" with private businesses? If someone ends up going out of business because of bigotry, racism, etc. it's on them. This whole Indiana thing is ridiculously overblown in my opinion, and I'm pretty sure I remember reading that bakery has since gone out of business. This qualifies to me as a "slow news day" story.
Singlestack Wonder
04-02-15, 08:57
While I agree that persons should not be discriminated against due to race, religion, etc., homosexual and other deviant behavior is completely in bounds as far as not having to serve folks of this ilk at private businesses. If a business refuses to serve a convicted child molester after they got out of prison, should the business be attacked by the government, facebook, and other social liberal causes?
sevenhelmet
04-02-15, 09:22
While I agree that persons should not be discriminated against due to race, religion, etc., homosexual and other deviant behavior is completely in bounds as far as not having to serve folks of this ilk at private businesses. If a business refuses to serve a convicted child molester after they got out of prison, should the business be attacked by the government, facebook, and other social liberal causes?
Exactly. It's a steep and slippery slope to me (not to mention the obvious agenda-pushing).
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-02-15, 09:46
While I agree that persons should not be discriminated against due to race, religion, etc., homosexual and other deviant behavior is completely in bounds as far as not having to serve folks of this ilk at private businesses. If a business refuses to serve a convicted child molester after they got out of prison, should the business be attacked by the government, facebook, and other social liberal causes?
Actually, wasn't Holder going after the practice of running back-ground checks or not hiring felons based purely on convictions for jobs that didn't have sensitive circumstances?
The whole 'refuse service' thing is out the window with the protected classes.
I still am fuzzy on exactly what the law allows.
OOOOkkayyy,
Jesus never dealt with community organizers from the south side of Chicago. These guys have power the Romans would have denied the gods.
Seriously, that is an incredibly naive viewpoint as progressives try to tear down the very fabric of our society and country.
Love the sinner hate the sin, but here the sinners are DEMANDING that you look at sinful acts and say that it's normal, moral and good.
Funny that you didn't start at 19:17. I'm no Bible scholar, but apply that here and you'll find yourself knee-deep in lawsuits.
Go further back - The question was 'Teacher, what must must I (I as in ME) do to have eternal life' And what did Jesus say? Not 'make everyone obey the Commandments' rather he said 19:17 - 'If YOU want to have eternal life obey the Commandments.'
You probably really, really, don't want to read 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 or, in the context of that, Matthew 7:5. And yep, refer me to 7:1-3, guilty! :)
Don't shit in my hat and call it diversity.
This all started with the Texas law on sodomy and Santorum was widely ridiculed for foreseeing what is happening right now. Back then it was, "Why do you care what happens in the bedroom?". Now we have those same people showing up demanding a cake to celebrate it.
Of all the problems in the world, everyone has their thongs in a bunch over this silly law? Seriously?
And by the way, they didn't just stumble into these bakeries. The gay mafia targeted them as examples. No one cares if you buy a cupcake, but they know that they would get push back.
You are absolutely correct, most of the gays regard these folks as the equivalent of open carry activists.
Frankly, if I were a baker, I'd stock just man and woman cake toppings and tell the gays, sorry we don't carry that. You can't make a kosher deli sell pork chops.
And, there you go. But what if someone asks for two men? How about, sorry, because of our beliefs and wanting to be fair to all, we don't stock any figures, here is a catalog to order them from. My first wife was a cake decorator, she had folks that would have let her slap them in the face to get her to decorate a cake for them. If you are good enough, the 'sorry, we don't do figures, wouldn't hurt business at all.
Here's the deal - I was listening to a Baptist pastor from Indiana talk about this law on NPR this morning. He made a point that he performed wedding ceremonies for compensation, and that he should not be required to perform services for same sex couples, essentially just because they are willing to pay him.
Well, a couple of things, first of all, in his position, if a gay couple came to me and asked me to marry them, I would explain my views, and explain the ceremony I would be willing to perform. It would include statements regarding hating sin, but loving the sinner, and that the Lord will be the ultimate judge of the validity of this marriage, but according to the laws of the state of Indiana, I hereby legally joined them.
Now would any reasonable gay couple want him to perform the ceremony? Probably not. Could he be sued for discrimination - probably not.
The other way to do this would be to simply tell people that 'I don't perform wedding ceremonies for people that are not members of my Church.'
But then he would be missing out on the opportunity to make extra money, joining people in holy matrimony. Most of the Pastors, like him, who yap on about this issue also have no qualms about marrying folks who have been violating the Lord's Commandments regarding adultery. They also, on a regular basis unit people in holy matrimony who haven't been inside a Church in years, and are not believers other than 'we need to get married in a Church, any Church.'
The reality of the situation is that you have two groups of people who want to scream at each other.
While I agree that persons should not be discriminated against due to race, religion, etc., homosexual and other deviant behavior is completely in bounds as far as not having to serve folks of this ilk at private businesses. If a business refuses to serve a convicted child molester after they got out of prison, should the business be attacked by the government, facebook, and other social liberal causes?
So how do you feel about businesses being able to say 'don't come in here with your gun' - are you just as fervent in saying that is within their rights?
I'm just pointing out that my belief is that if you are running a business, open to the public, then you shouldn't be able to tell me I can't carry a weapon in your business, as long as it is legal for me to carry it. State laws giving businesses the right to bar you from carrying within the law are BS, as far as I'm concerned. Don't want me carrying guns in your store? Don't run a store that is open to the public.
Same thing about this issue, don't want gays in your store? Don't run a store that is open to the public, go members only. Don't want to print tee-shirts that offend you, but are legal speech? Probably shouldn't be running a custom tee-shirt shop open to the public.
You want everybody to listen to your prayer in public? Honor your religion? If you are in business, be prepared to honor theirs.
Averageman
04-02-15, 10:11
The reality of the situation is that you have two groups of people who want to scream at each other.
I think it goes a bit deeper than just wanting to yell at each other. I think what the end goal is, is to stomp out anyone who does not agree with them. This isn't unique to the LGBT community, it's being used by many other movements to fundamentally change America.
Disagree with our POTUS, well, you're a racist.
Call attention to Fast and Furious and demand some sort of action taken against Holder, again Racist.
Call attention to Benghazi and demand accountability from our POTUS and Secretary of State, okay now you're a racist and a sexist.
Refuse to participate in a Gay Wedding through refusal of service, Homophobe.
The list goes on and on and it has a purpose, these folks hate America and its culture and will do anything to change it. Acknowledging their methods is the only way to counter them.
The right, especially those RINO's in Washington refuse to see it and play hard ball and nip this stuff in the bud with hammer like legal actions immediately. So, here is where we are at, anything you say or due that doesn't fit their agenda is going to be hammered and no one is going to stand up and fight back.
Owning the media allows them to own the court of public opinion.
Averageman
04-02-15, 10:22
So how do you feel about businesses being able to say 'don't come in here with your gun' - are you just as fervent in saying that is within their rights?
I'm just pointing out that my belief is that if you are running a business, open to the public, then you shouldn't be able to tell me I can't carry a weapon in your business, as long as it is legal for me to carry it. State laws giving businesses the right to bar you from carrying within the law are BS, as far as I'm concerned. Don't want me carrying guns in your store? Don't run a store that is open to the public.
Same thing about this issue, don't want gays in your store? Don't run a store that is open to the public, go members only. Don't want to print tee-shirts that offend you, but are legal speech? Probably shouldn't be running a custom tee-shirt shop open to the public.
You want everybody to listen to your prayer in public? Honor your religion? If you are in business, be prepared to honor theirs.
I would agree with your opinion to a point.
If you have a sign on your door clearly stating you don't want my gun in your business, I simply wont do business with you. I'm not going to take you to court and force you to allow me on your private property with my gun.
But, not only that.
I know of few, perhaps very few people who's religious beliefs will be damaged by my gun in their business. It certainly to the best of my knowledge wont be a sin for them to participate in my being armed on their property. I'm not a religious scholar by any means, but that's what I understand.
At some point I have the right to my personal beliefs, especially my deeply held religious ones being respected and I should have the right to honor them.
how about you post up that scientific proof because you would be the first person and be truly ground breaking
and until they/you can prove it then its a THEORY !!!!! just like global warming
I did not site any docs or support it ? I don't have to its out there all over the internet and many medical journals and edu research and other places that they cant find anything but are trying
I think you need to do some studying on what the word theory means...
As for your request.
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451
The studies claiming there are no genetic differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals are all old and dated, most of which have been shown to use flawed data or were done before we had a better understanding of genetics.
I am always a bit baffled by the claim that people choose to be gay. If that is the case when did you "choose" to be strait? could you randomly just choose to be gay for a day and see? I know that as a strait man I can't flip a switch and suddenly be attracted to other men. Hell, I know some gay people who would prefer to be strait since it would make their lives a lot easier.
Religion is a choice, Military service is a choice. And both of these are protected classes. I happen to think this is a good thing. However all of the other protected classes have to do with how a person is born. LGBT is going to be added soon as well and this willl all be moot.
While I agree that persons should not be discriminated against due to race, religion, etc., homosexual and other deviant behavior is completely in bounds as far as not having to serve folks of this ilk at private businesses. If a business refuses to serve a convicted child molester after they got out of prison, should the business be attacked by the government, facebook, and other social liberal causes?
Now that we are down to comparing gay people to child molesters and other "deviant behavior" I'm done here. One of my friends, a gay man who's a plastic surgeon, who is currently in South America fixing children with deformities for free, a service he does every year, is good to go. He, like many others of that sexual preference, wouldn't harm a child if his life depended on it, and I'd call him friend and have a beer with him over most people I know.
Good luck all.
Now that we are down to comparing gay people to child molesters and other "deviant behavior" I'm done here. One of my friends, a gay man who's a plastic surgeon, who is currently in South America fixing children with deformities for free, a service he does every year, is good to go. He, like many others of that sexual preference, wouldn't harm a child if his life depended on it, and I'd call him friend and have a beer with him over most people I know.
Good luck all.
When it comes down to it that is all they have. There are no valid reasons to object so they come up with this crazy stuff. Outside of religion I have yet to see a single person come up with a reason that has any bearing on reality.
skijunkie55
04-02-15, 11:38
Honu, point taken- you can't abide gays, but please stop trolling for arguments. You aren't going to "prove" anything either way, and it's killing this thread.
Back on topic, what happened to the old "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" with private businesses? If someone ends up going out of business because of bigotry, racism, etc. it's on them. This whole Indiana thing is ridiculously overblown in my opinion, and I'm pretty sure I remember reading that bakery has since gone out of business. This qualifies to me as a "slow news day" story.
However, the liberal progressives have gone and taken it a step further by going out of their way, like literally travelling to a town of 2,200 people to paint these businesses as bigots, racists, and then go to social media and essentially ruin them.
http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2015/04/indiana_pizzeria_closes_after.html
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/big-gay-hate-machine-closes-christian-pizza-parlor/
If this is the side one wants to hitch their wagon to, then kindly gtfo of here. This is the problem, and this is what the LGBT community pushes for 24/7. If you're (not sevenhelmet quoted above, but people in general) too blind to see their agenda, there's no point having this conversation.
skijunkie55
04-02-15, 11:48
Religion is a choice, Military service is a choice. And both of these are protected classes. I happen to think this is a good thing. However all of the other protected classes have to do with how a person is born. LGBT is going to be added soon as well and this willl all be moot.
Alright! let's add the transgender / sexual identity confusion list to the protected species too. Then we can have open bathrooms everywhere. I see no problem with this at all.......
sevenhelmet
04-02-15, 12:03
Now that we are down to comparing gay people to child molesters and other "deviant behavior" I'm done here. One of my friends, a gay man who's a plastic surgeon, who is currently in South America fixing children with deformities for free, a service he does every year, is good to go. He, like many others of that sexual preference, wouldn't harm a child if his life depended on it, and I'd call him friend and have a beer with him over most people I know.
Good luck all.
Agreed. It's really too bad that otherwise right thinking folks can be so bigoted and keep poisoning the well for the rest of us.
This isn't about gay vs. straight, sexual morality, or why people are gay. It's about businesses not having political agendas imposed on them by the government. Far be it from me to convince Starbucks to allow me to be in their store while armed, so I don't go to Starbucks. Same for businesses who use religion as a veil to ban gays- that's their prerogative as a privately-owned business, despite my opinion that it is wrong. Our local/state/fed government should not be in the business of legislating who gets served (and they sure won't make Starbucks remove that "gun free zone" sign!) As I said before, it's a steep and slippery slope to losing our freedoms, and I think unlike the civil rights movement in the middle of the last century, these kinds of businesses are in the minority.
All that said, I'm done with this thread too. It's more than run its course as far as I'm concerned.
I would agree with your opinion to a point.
If you have a sign on your door clearly stating you don't want my gun in your business, I simply wont do business with you. I'm not going to take you to court and force you to allow me on your private property with my gun.
But, not only that.
I know of few, perhaps very few people who's religious beliefs will be damaged by my gun in their business. It certainly to the best of my knowledge wont be a sin for them to participate in my being armed on their property. I'm not a religious scholar by any means, but that's what I understand.
At some point I have the right to my personal beliefs, especially my deeply held religious ones being respected and I should have the right to honor them.
We're reasonable people. Most of them I encounter, are not.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-02-15, 12:46
However, the liberal progressives have gone and taken it a step further by going out of their way, like literally travelling to a town of 2,200 people to paint these businesses as bigots, racists, and then go to social media and essentially ruin them.
http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2015/04/indiana_pizzeria_closes_after.html
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/big-gay-hate-machine-closes-christian-pizza-parlor/
If this is the side one wants to hitch their wagon to, then kindly gtfo of here. This is the problem, and this is what the LGBT community pushes for 24/7. If you're (not sevenhelmet quoted above, but people in general) too blind to see their agenda, there's no point having this conversation.
I saw this and wondered how many weddings they cater? If your wedding dinner is showing up in a box in under 30 minutes- let's just say that Mrs. Hand had different expectations.
Straight people, like Brittney Spears, have done more damage to marriage than gay people ever will.
brickboy240
04-02-15, 13:55
I would be willing to bet that those that are comparing gays to child molesters have no close relatives or friends that are gay.
If you did...you'd realize that most gays (...not the ones on tv acting all offended or gyrating on parade floats in leather shorts) are quiet, reserved, private people. They do not dress odd and most want to just be left alone.
Oddly enough, the ones I know don't care if gay marriage is legalized or not! Yeah...they don't care. They also say many other gays they know don't care. You never hear about this but I have heard it enough to think it might be true. They say that 99% of the "gay agenda" that is front and center in big media is being pushed by a narrow few and a leftist media that looks to shock, infuriate and divide American society.
You all are going to think I am crazy (...because the gay hate here is off the charts) but the GOP would do well to try to woo this group - not scare them away.
Why?
Well, the gays I know are fiscal conservatives, they value privacy and individual liberties, they also mostly work professional jobs and want to be self sufficient. None I know are dependent on govt for anything. They are well read, culturally astute and not a drag on our society. Most want to be left along, live their lives and be recognized only for their professional achievements. Sound familiar?
Compare that to OTHER groups the GOP has tried to woo over the years....you could do much worse than the gays if you ask me.
...but ahead and keep pushing them away and keep on losing national elections if it makes you happy! LOL
Averageman
04-02-15, 14:05
I would be willing to bet that those that are comparing gays to child molesters have no close relatives or friends that are gay.
If you did...you'd realize that most gays (...not the ones on tv acting all offended or gyrating on parade floats in leather shorts) are quiet, reserved, private people. They do not dress odd and most want to just be left alone.
Oddly enough, the ones I know don't care if gay marriage is legalized or not! Yeah...they don't care. They also say many other gays they know don't care. You never hear about this but I have heard it enough to think it might be true. They say that 99% of the "gay agenda" that is front and center in big media is being pushed by a narrow few and a leftist media that looks to shock, infuriate and divide American society.
You all are going to think I am crazy (...because the gay hate here is off the charts) but the GOP would do well to try to woo this group - not scare them away.
Why?
Well, the gays I know are fiscal conservatives, they value privacy and individual liberties, they also mostly work professional jobs and want to be self sufficient. None I know are dependent on govt for anything. They are well read, culturally astute and not a drag on our society. Most want to be left along, live their lives and be recognized only for their professional achievements. Sound familiar?
Compare that to OTHER groups the GOP has tried to woo over the years....you could do much worse than the gays if you ask me.
...but ahead and keep pushing them away and keep on losing national elections if it makes you happy! LOL
I totally agree with you and I firmly believe,
" They say that 99% of the "gay agenda" that is front and center in big media is being pushed by a narrow few and a leftist media that looks to shock, infuriate and divide American society."
This to be true.
I really care more about my neighbors keeping their lawn cut and their trash cans collected than what they do in their Bedrooms.
brickboy240
04-02-15, 14:16
The gays I used to live near had the coolest lawn on the block. Really nice plants and they were constantly working on it.
The other minority groups...many the GOP has tried to woo....not so much.
I also know a gay couple that adopted a child and they are both very involved in the kid's development. Making sure he gets a good education, is always well fed and loved. They told me they hope the kid does not end up being gay. Many think that gays are out to "recruit" others and kids and this is also simply not true.
skijunkie55
04-02-15, 14:18
I have yet to see any of my gay relatives or business associates (architectural design world. Plenty of them here) denounce the actions of the left leaning media and say "stop making issues out of this. You don't speak for us." In fact, they share and like the articles that promote the heterosexual witch hunts that are happening in Indiana right now. Half the reason I started this thread. Same goes with the crowd that jumped on board with the #blacklivesmatter bandwagon when they were rallying around cop killers. If my objections to that make me a bigot and racist to them, so be it. It's true about the media and the select few trying to push this agenda, so where's the accountability from their side? Maybe there is some, but their voice is not being heard.
I suppose I'll have to ask them these questions after our next weekly project meeting...
The problem is that people don't just want to have their own "belief system" and be left alone, they want OTHERS to validate their lifestyle.
When you find a segment of the population that wants the mechanics of the law to force someone to validate their belief system... we have a problem.
This is the antitheses of liberty.
A couple points I'd just like to make. First, there is discrimination everywhere you look. People are discriminated against due to their gender, height, weight, political affiliation, race, etc. Places give special pricing because of your gender and places don't allow you to carry your gun in their store. I don't see the outcry for Kosher delis or butcher shops to start selling pork. Why is some discrimination okay and other types of discrimination isn't? I don't see the gay community and the media questioning the religious beliefs of Muslim owned businesses. Conversely, I don't see large groups of Christians threatening and pillaging gay owned businesses. Could you imaging the outcry from the Left? Yet when the gay community and it's supporters pull these shenanigans not a word is said. This plain and simple is an attack on Christianity and has a lot less to do with moral outrage then they would like you to think.
Second, we need to stop acting like all discrimination is the same. Not baking a cake for someone isn't the same as lynching gays in the streets. Making the direct correlation between not making a cake and thus being "full of hate" and "bigoted" is ludicrous. Many of these businesses who are being harassed and forced out of business were asked to provide a product or service they didn't offer. Memories Pizza who is receiving death threats and threats of the building being burnt down didn't even have a gay couple ask them to provide a service. A reporter contacted them, because they were Christians, and asked them whether or not they would cater a gay wedding. They said no; they have never catered an event. Ever. If someone wants a penis cake, that owner should be able to refuse to make the cake if it goes against their moral convictions. Will the government now force atheist bakers to make cross-shaped cakes or "God is Awesome" cakes? Will Jewish bookstores be forced to stock the New Testament? The list could go on and on.
We eventually need to learn that we can't legislate ourselves into blissful existence with each other. We also need to be able to separate the gay activists from the general gay population. Most gays I'm sure just want to live and be left alone. The activist wing of the group is far less benign. We were told to "stay out of their bedroom and just give them the right to marry and that is all they wanted. It won't affect you." Now, obviously that is not ALL they want. They want us to accept their lifestyle and ideals hook, line and sinker or they will threaten you in any way they can. That is not how tolerance works. Extremism in any form is usually bad; such is the case here.
Whenever you start forcing someone to do something against their convictions you are asking for trouble. Bigotry sucks, but unfortunately it is a part of life. Time to grow thicker skin and let the free market fix things; We the People get it right way more often then the government does.
I was not trolling I was responding to someone who claimed something and there is no proof gays are born that way !
and I never said anything about abiding them ? so dont twist what I have said !
Honu, point taken- you can't abide gays, but please stop trolling for arguments. You aren't going to "prove" anything either way, and it's killing this thread.
Back on topic, what happened to the old "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" with private businesses? If someone ends up going out of business because of bigotry, racism, etc. it's on them. This whole Indiana thing is ridiculously overblown in my opinion, and I'm pretty sure I remember reading that bakery has since gone out of business. This qualifies to me as a "slow news day" story.
hahahahah OK
from your first article about the study says it all
” Bailey says, “but until somebody finds a gene, we don’t know.”
all 3 of these links you sent are based on the same study ? hahahahahah
or to quote them
And the kind of DNA analysis used, known as a genetic linkage study, has largely been superseded by other techniques. Due to the limitations of this approach, the new work also fails to provide what behavioral geneticists really crave: specific genes that might underlie homosexuality.
I think you need to do some studying on what the word theory means...
As for your request.
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451
The studies claiming there are no genetic differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals are all old and dated, most of which have been shown to use flawed data or were done before we had a better understanding of genetics.
I am always a bit baffled by the claim that people choose to be gay. If that is the case when did you "choose" to be strait? could you randomly just choose to be gay for a day and see? I know that as a strait man I can't flip a switch and suddenly be attracted to other men. Hell, I know some gay people who would prefer to be strait since it would make their lives a lot easier.
Religion is a choice, Military service is a choice. And both of these are protected classes. I happen to think this is a good thing. However all of the other protected classes have to do with how a person is born. LGBT is going to be added soon as well and this willl all be moot.
Homosexuals suffer from mental illness. Appropriate psychiatric treatment is what is needed, not for society to conform to their demands, plastic surgeons or not.
In the 1970s, gay activists campaigned against the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic Statistical Manual classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year. A category of "sexual orientation disturbance" was introduced in its place in 1974, and then replaced in the 1980 DSM-III with Ego-dystonic sexual orientation. That was removed in 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association
if some business found out I was pro gun and said dont come in here I would say OK and go find another place
to bad other wacko groups cant be so civil instead they want to burn places down and travel all day just to protest something they would never go to anyway ?
well said :)
A couple points I'd just like to make. First, there is discrimination everywhere you look. People are discriminated against due to their gender, height, weight, political affiliation, race, etc. Places give special pricing because of your gender and places don't allow you to carry your gun in their store. I don't see the outcry for Kosher delis or butcher shops to start selling pork. Why is some discrimination okay and other types of discrimination isn't? I don't see the gay community and the media questioning the religious beliefs of Muslim owned businesses. Conversely, I don't see large groups of Christians threatening and pillaging gay owned businesses. Could you imaging the outcry from the Left? Yet when the gay community and it's supporters pull these shenanigans not a word is said. This plain and simple is an attack on Christianity and has a lot less to do with moral outrage then they would like you to think.
Second, we need to stop acting like all discrimination is the same. Not baking a cake for someone isn't the same as lynching gays in the streets. Making the direct correlation between not making a cake and thus being "full of hate" and "bigoted" is ludicrous. Many of these businesses who are being harassed and forced out of business were asked to provide a product or service they didn't offer. Memories Pizza who is receiving death threats and threats of the building being burnt down didn't even have a gay couple ask them to provide a service. A reporter contacted them, because they were Christians, and asked them whether or not they would cater a gay wedding. They said no; they have never catered an event. Ever. If someone wants a penis cake, that owner should be able to refuse to make the cake if it goes against their moral convictions. Will the government now force atheist bakers to make cross-shaped cakes or "God is Awesome" cakes? Will Jewish bookstores be forced to stock the New Testament? The list could go on and on.
We eventually need to learn that we can't legislate ourselves into blissful existence with each other. We also need to be able to separate the gay activists from the general gay population. Most gays I'm sure just want to live and be left alone. The activist wing of the group is far less benign. We were told to "stay out of their bedroom and just give them the right to marry and that is all they wanted. It won't affect you." Now, obviously that is not ALL they want. They want us to accept their lifestyle and ideals hook, line and sinker or they will threaten you in any way they can. That is not how tolerance works. Extremism in any form is usually bad; such is the case here.
Whenever you start forcing someone to do something against their convictions you are asking for trouble. Bigotry sucks, but unfortunately it is a part of life. Time to grow thicker skin and let the free market fix things; We the People get it right way more often then the government does.
Moose-Knuckle
04-02-15, 17:34
A couple points I'd just like to make. First, there is discrimination everywhere you look. People are discriminated against due to their gender, height, weight, political affiliation, race, etc. Places give special pricing because of your gender and places don't allow you to carry your gun in their store. I don't see the outcry for Kosher delis or butcher shops to start selling pork. Why is some discrimination okay and other types of discrimination isn't? I don't see the gay community and the media questioning the religious beliefs of Muslim owned businesses. Conversely, I don't see large groups of Christians threatening and pillaging gay owned businesses. Could you imaging the outcry from the Left? Yet when the gay community and it's supporters pull these shenanigans not a word is said. This plain and simple is an attack on Christianity and has a lot less to do with moral outrage then they would like you to think.
Second, we need to stop acting like all discrimination is the same. Not baking a cake for someone isn't the same as lynching gays in the streets. Making the direct correlation between not making a cake and thus being "full of hate" and "bigoted" is ludicrous. Many of these businesses who are being harassed and forced out of business were asked to provide a product or service they didn't offer. Memories Pizza who is receiving death threats and threats of the building being burnt down didn't even have a gay couple ask them to provide a service. A reporter contacted them, because they were Christians, and asked them whether or not they would cater a gay wedding. They said no; they have never catered an event. Ever. If someone wants a penis cake, that owner should be able to refuse to make the cake if it goes against their moral convictions. Will the government now force atheist bakers to make cross-shaped cakes or "God is Awesome" cakes? Will Jewish bookstores be forced to stock the New Testament? The list could go on and on.
We eventually need to learn that we can't legislate ourselves into blissful existence with each other. We also need to be able to separate the gay activists from the general gay population. Most gays I'm sure just want to live and be left alone. The activist wing of the group is far less benign. We were told to "stay out of their bedroom and just give them the right to marry and that is all they wanted. It won't affect you." Now, obviously that is not ALL they want. They want us to accept their lifestyle and ideals hook, line and sinker or they will threaten you in any way they can. That is not how tolerance works. Extremism in any form is usually bad; such is the case here.
Whenever you start forcing someone to do something against their convictions you are asking for trouble. Bigotry sucks, but unfortunately it is a part of life. Time to grow thicker skin and let the free market fix things; We the People get it right way more often then the government does.
This is spot on.
I've been saying this since all this was first thrown in our face with the CO bakery, why is it legal and socially acceptable for Jewish owned Kosher markets and Islamic owned Halal markets to refuse to sell me vodka, Hustler magazines, and bacon? How come their "religious" beliefs and freedom supersede that of a Christian owned business?
Anyone catch the Target sign that they made for their Islamic cashiers to place in their registers stating that if you have pork or alcoholic products please go to the next available cashier for service since it's against their religion to touch said products? Ironic that the Islamic cashiers piety permits them to work for a place that sells such sinful and offensive products.
I'm sick of everyone having the "right" to be offended except for those who align themselves with traditional Judeo-Christian tenets. If I ever come into money I'm going to hire a top notch production crew to follow me around and attempt to enter a black beauty pageant, a women's college, shop for my sinful fair at an Islamic store, so on and so forth.
Over 400K raised in 1 day...
The liberal media and gay activists are nothing but a mob.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/nearly-150000-raised-for-christian-pizzeria-after-threats-force-owners-into-hiding/
http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza
Singlestack Wonder
04-02-15, 21:02
To the comment about how I would feel if a business refused me service due to my concealed weapon, I would have no issues and would take my business to a store that accepted my choice to carry a weapon. I also would not have an issue with a homosexual owned business denying me service for being heterosexual as I would again take my business elsewhere. While I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I do not think they are evil or anything else, I just do not agree with their behavior and should not be forced to accept it.
Singlestack Wonder
04-02-15, 21:13
The problem is that people don't just want to have their own "belief system" and be left alone, they want OTHERS to validate their lifestyle.
When you find a segment of the population that wants the mechanics of the law to force someone to validate their belief system... we have a problem.
This is the antitheses of liberty.
+10........,
The problem is that people don't just want to have their own "belief system" and be left alone, they want OTHERS to validate their lifestyle.
When you find a segment of the population that wants the mechanics of the law to force someone to validate their belief system... we have a problem.
This is the antitheses of liberty.
This is sort if a straw man. You're correct, but that's not at issue. Owning a business open to the public is NOT just wanting to be left alone, it's inviting everyone to pay for your services. The government DOES allow you to be a bigoted as you want in private. But when you open to the public, that's when it steps in to ensure some basic human decency.
I would be willing to bet that those that are comparing gays to child molesters have no close relatives or friends that are gay.
Good thing you didn't actually bet anything!
So if homosexuality has been OK'd by society as a "genetic trait", where will they go next? Incest? Pedophilia? Bestiality?
I have yet to see any of my gay relatives or business associates...
It is freaking ridiculous that this is even going on. Since when is the right of the individual business owner subject to the whims of a customer, other than loss of said customer?
I remember saying when this all started, be careful about opening Pandora's box...and now we have stupid crap like this...
Note; I'd bake them a cake, but I guarantee you it would taste like no other cake I've ever baked before or since...
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-02-15, 22:15
Lynchings, flaming crosses, burning churches, beatings, police dogs, forced to sit in the back (if at all) on the bus...
...and now being followed by mall security, being asked to grab things off of high shelves, and not being baked a cake.
We married, college-educated, middle-management white guys are just pure evil and America isn't making any progress.
We need a picture of a grown man balling his eyes out with the text.
Discrimination
They won't bake me a cake!!!!
It is freaking ridiculous that this is even going on. Since when is the right of the individual business owner subject to the whims of a customer, other than loss of said customer?
Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I should again state that certain businesses must only provide service to someone based on the service provided to others without said class. If you would bake a cake with two names on it for a white man, you are legally required to do the same for a black woman. But again, if you wouldn't do it for anyone, you don't have to do it because someone is a minority.
ramairthree
04-03-15, 00:07
My personal opinion is that an individual/private business should be entirely in control of who they choose to do business with, etc. and that the Civil Rights Act should only apply to public/government stuff.
The Supreme Court disagreed, and ruled it does apply to private businesses, saying Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Since then it has been applied and amended for lots of other stuff like outlawing father daughter dances and father son games, calling schools discriminatory for not having classes in student's native languages instead of English, etc.
More and more stuff will get added.
A Muslim is not going to sell alcohol to anyone, so it is not discriminatory.
A Jew can decide not to sell bacon to anyone, so it is not discriminatory.
A Christian cannot decide to sell cigarettes to anyone but Muslims, etc.
I may not think it is right for a business to be forced to hire people that will not do all the same tasks as someone else in that position, or to force a Catholic caterer to serve steak on Friday if they do not want to, etc. but the law seems to be saying otherwise.
So, I think if it is my constitutional right to free speech and bear arms, a business should not be able to refuse me for carrying a weapon or wearing a shirt that says Mohammed sucks, but I bet they will get away with it.
Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I should again state that certain businesses must only provide service to someone based on the service provided to others without said class. If you would bake a cake with two names on it for a white man, you are legally required to do the same for a black woman. But again, if you wouldn't do it for anyone, you don't have to do it because someone is a minority.
That's funny, a bakery in 2008 REFUSED to make a cake for this kid.
http://geekologie.com/2008/12/18/stupid-idiots.jpg
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/child_named_after_adolf_hitler.html
Where was the civil rights act of 1964 then? There was protest, but it was actually directed against the parents and not the bakery that refused to serve them.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-03-15, 03:27
Progressives are seriously batting 0 for 3 lately, but it doesn't seem to really affect how their policy position are perceived:
-Evil, privileged white boys rape a girl on UVAs campus and the world goes crazy till the Rolling Stone article falls apart with the slightest investigation. The seriousness of the issue overshadows the veracity of the facts of the case. The university holds seminars about sexual assaults while no one talks about media bias and modern reporting standards. Sexual assaults are a serious issue that gets short changed in Progressive push to demonize.
-Brown gets shot by a racist police officer as he tries to surrender. The nation is convulsed with riots and demonstrations with the chant of "Hands-up, don't shoot"- which even the DOJ has to admit is a lie and was perpetuated by the MSM and threats of violence for any eyewitnesses that contradicted the incorrect meme. Instead of charging people with perjury, the DOJ 'indicts' a small town for doing what all the minority run municipalities around it also do to raise revenue. The very serious issue of black youths being killed is pushed aside for a false narrative against the police. Never mind that most minorities live in municipalities run by Democrats.
-The press and corporations are all shocked at Indiana's passing of a law that even a Democrat president voted for 20 years ago. The great offense? Not letting some people have cake. Somewhere Marie Antoinette is spinning in her grave. Four-year-olds who don't eat their vegetables rise up in solidarity. SalesFarce offers to pull its employees from this cake-less hell, while they do business in Saudi Arabia where they give gays cake, but cut off their heads.
Never mind that AGW, which is literally going sideways on the Progressive campaign against the modern industrial world. 'Peace in our term' deal with Iran from a president who hates Churchill, and can't seem to stop channeling Chamberlain. Chamberlain may have abandoned Czechoslovakia, but at least he wasn't as hostile to them as BHO is to Israel- or more personally Bibi.
Health care goes from an expensive mess to an more expensive, bigger confusing mess. A border that mimics a maps dotted line. Six years into a 'recovery' that benefits the very money interests that got us here.
And here we are talking about people not getting cake. And the only threats of violence in Indiana is from the Progressive side of the table.
Sarah Palin doesn't even say "I can see Russia from my house" and she gets plastered in the media while people like Biden specifically and Progressives in general get away with the absolutely inane chatter that taints the discussion of real issues- and there is silence about their failures of analysis and action.
"What's the big deal with this whole Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration law?"- Someone wanted their cake and to indict you too.
Gotta go, I think I hear the gay mafia at my door.
That's funny, a bakery in 2008 REFUSED to make a cake for this kid.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/child_named_after_adolf_hitler.html
Where was the civil rights act of 1964 then? There was protest, but it was actually directed against the parents and not the bakery that refused to serve them.
That's not a civil rights issue in the least.
Moose-Knuckle
04-03-15, 04:23
Over 400K raised in 1 day...
The liberal media and gay activists are nothing but a mob.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/nearly-150000-raised-for-christian-pizzeria-after-threats-force-owners-into-hiding/
http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza
Reminds me of the Chic-Fil-A ordeal when the LGBT industry attempted to protest the national chain over their Religious beliefs and views on homosexuality. Totally backfired on them lol. I bet Chic-Fil-A made more than weekend than any other time in their history, I remember seeing the lines of Pro-Family people wrapped around every store. Hopefully this pizza joint has a similar experience.
HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/
This is sort if a straw man. You're correct, but that's not at issue.
It's not a straw man though...that's exactly the motivation behind a lot of this.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Apple (and particularly CEO Tim Cook) one of many mega corporations leading the charge against Indiana is picking and choosing moral standards. Interest over principles when oodles of money is involved:
"Apple is happy to sell to those who mandate that women shroud themselves in hijabs and do not permit them to appear in public without their husbands or allow them drive a car. Homosexuals are subjected to death by beheading, stoning, being tossed off buildings across the region where Apple products are found to the delight of Mr. Cook. Like most who share the progressive ideology, he seems to lose his passion for the protection of so-called protected classes like homosexuals for the right price under authoritarian ideological governance."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/apple_ceos_double_standards_on_religious_freedom_restoration_act.html
This really is a 'national freak out' over nothing. I am so sick of people getting so fired up over things that don't matter.
-Jax
While the Middle East is burning, literally, and Iran is a real, imminent threat to global security, we are debating the threat posed by a bakery.
Apple (and particularly CEO Tim Cook) one of many mega corporations leading the charge against Indiana is picking and choosing moral standards. Interest over principles when oodles of money is involved:
"Apple is happy to sell to those who mandate that women shroud themselves in hijabs and do not permit them to appear in public without their husbands or allow them drive a car. Homosexuals are subjected to death by beheading, stoning, being tossed off buildings across the region where Apple products are found to the delight of Mr. Cook. Like most who share the progressive ideology, he seems to lose his passion for the protection of so-called protected classes like homosexuals for the right price under authoritarian ideological governance."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/apple_ceos_double_standards_on_religious_freedom_restoration_act.html
This really is a 'national freak out' over nothing. I am so sick of people getting so fired up over things that don't matter.
-Jax
The hypocrisy is great. But so is the desire of the left to impose on all of America, including our children, their immoral lifestyle and rejection of our Creator.
The hypocrisy is great. But so is the desire of the left to impose on all of America, including our children, their immoral lifestyle and rejection of our Creator.
Amen to that NATO. I remember 6-7 years ago a talk host I listen to said you won't be able to recognize this country anymore in 5 years. I thought that may happen but years and years down the road. Boy was I wrong.
-Jax
skijunkie55
04-03-15, 08:30
While the Middle East is burning, literally, and Iran is a real, imminent threat to global security, we are debating the threat posed by a bakery.
Nothing we, as the American people, do or say is going to affect the situation in the Middle East right now (aside from more bombs and boots on the ground.)
Looking at the bigger picture, the decline of morals in this country is worth addressing.
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGdecline.htm
Compare this to America today.
1. Decline in Morals and Values
2. Public Health
3. Political Corruption
4. Unemployment
5. Inflation
6. Urban decay
7. Inferior Technology
8. Military Spending
No one expects the The Leftist Imposition.
The hypocrisy is great. But so is the desire of the left to impose on all of America, including our children, their immoral lifestyle and rejection of our Creator.
Averageman
04-03-15, 10:28
I kind of see this as "Police State Lite", if I say or do something you wont drag me off to a Labor Camp, you'll just insure me life is ruined.
These folks who own the Pizzeria, had no idea that when this young Lady was being "interviewed" (is it an interview when it's a set-up for a "gotcha" moment?) that She would be answering questions not about her own opinion, but speaking for the entire business.
So someone with an agenda comes in, looking to pick a fight and finds one. It might have little is anything to do with what is in this young Ladies heart, it was a confrontation with a person who had an agenda.
You shouldn't have to back down from your religious beliefs to appease those with whom you have disagreements with about religious matters. You do the right and polite thing and agree to disagree and move on. That goes for a lot of things in life, you move on, shop somewhere else and avoid the drama.
In these cases the drama feeds the frenzy, the frenzy feeds the change and irregardless of what is in your heart, or your core beliefs you had better toe the party line, or we'll release the Queer SS on you.
The point is we all, right or wrong have things we believe in our hearts to be true and vital to living our lives right, we need to be allowed the dignity of saying NO to those things that conflict with our core beliefs. We need to be allowed to have and exercise our religion without interference.
Jesus died in a Police State and he died for what he believed in.
I kind of see this as "Police State Lite", if I say or do something you wont drag me off to a Labor Camp, you'll just insure me life is ruined.
These folks who own the Pizzeria, had no idea that when this young Lady was being "interviewed" (is it an interview when it's a set-up for a "gotcha" moment?) that She would be answering questions not about her own opinion, but speaking for the entire business.
So someone with an agenda comes in, looking to pick a fight and finds one. It might have little is anything to do with what is in this young Ladies heart, it was a confrontation with a person who had an agenda.
You shouldn't have to back down from your religious beliefs to appease those with whom you have disagreements with about religious matters. You do the right and polite thing and agree to disagree and move on. That goes for a lot of things in life, you move on, shop somewhere else and avoid the drama.
In these cases the drama feeds the frenzy, the frenzy feeds the change and irregardless of what is in your heart, or your core beliefs you had better toe the party line, or we'll release the Queer SS on you.
The point is we all, right or wrong have things we believe in our hearts to be true and vital to living our lives right, we need to be allowed the dignity of saying NO to those things that conflict with our core beliefs. We need to be allowed to have and exercise our religion without interference.
Jesus died in a Police State and he died for what he believed in.
Wait until the statists have removed our M4s - then, things will get ugly if you don't acquiesce to their demands...
Gun owners are nothing but a bunch of Inbreds who are overcompensating for their small package and the NRA is the lobby for gun manufactures that has bought off the Republicans.
See how easy it is to just lump together and dismiss an entire class of people. Well that above statement is just as backwards and wrong as the BS being thrown around here about the "gay mafia" and moral decline of our country.
I hate to say it but when it comes down to it a lot of member here are lying to themselves. They like to claim they are pro liberty and freedom. But in the end they are really only pro freedom when THEY agree with the freedom in question.
Freedom to own a gun? Great!
Freedom to worship the religion they personally choose? Great!
Freedom to be in a relationship with whomever a person chooses? Whoa! wait a second here that is just wrong. We can't have that. It is the destruction of our country.
Freedom to follow a different religion than is approved by your religion? holy shit no! You are wrong and can't do that. If you do then you are a terrorist/going to hell/evil/destroying our country.
Freedom to have access to the same services you do? Not in my country. I don't like you so you have no rights!
The list goes on.
It is narrow minded and frankly it is exactly the problem we face as a country. The rallying cry seems to be "how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance" Well guess what? I am tolerant of peoples beliefs when they disagree with mine. But no i am not tolerant of bigots who are so narrow minded they can't see past their own limited experiences in life.
You don't get to pick and choose which groups get the same freedoms you do based on what you find icky or what your own personal chosen religion states. Every member on here who is a christian is a protected class as well as the majority in this country. You don't get to deny others the same right.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-03-15, 17:07
Gun owners are nothing but a bunch of Inbreds who are overcompensating for their small package and the NRA is the lobby for gun manufactures that has bought off the Republicans.
See how easy it is to just lump together and dismiss an entire class of people. Well that above statement is just as backwards and wrong as the BS being thrown around here about the "gay mafia" and moral decline of our country.
I hate to say it but when it comes down to it a lot of member here are lying to themselves. They like to claim they are pro liberty and freedom. But in the end they are really only pro freedom when THEY agree with the freedom in question.
Freedom to own a gun? Great!
Freedom to worship the religion they personally choose? Great!
Freedom to be in a relationship with whomever a person chooses? Whoa! wait a second here that is just wrong. We can't have that. It is the destruction of our country.
Freedom to follow a different religion than is approved by your religion? holy shit no! You are wrong and can't do that. If you do then you are a terrorist/going to hell/evil/destroying our country.
Freedom to have access to the same services you do? Not in my country. I don't like you so you have no rights!
The list goes on.
It is narrow minded and frankly it is exactly the problem we face as a country. The rallying cry seems to be "how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance" Well guess what? I am tolerant of peoples beliefs when they disagree with mine. But no i am not tolerant of bigots who are so narrow minded they can't see past their own limited experiences in life.
You don't get to pick and choose which groups get the same freedoms you do based on what you find icky or what your own personal chosen religion states. Every member on here who is a christian is a protected class as well as the majority in this country. You don't get to deny others the same right.
Nice straw man argument.
Nice straw man argument.
Call it a straw man all you like. But i have read through every reply on here as well as people who have been debating this non stop for the past week. When it comes down to it people seem to only be for the freedoms they like. It doesn't work that way. I have made it clear in the past that I feel the world would be better if every church shut down and nobody believed in bronze age superstitions anymore. I have also made it clear that I will defend everyones right to believe. I support faith being protected just like race, etc. I do so because I understand that my personal view on the issue of faith doesn't matter. People have the right to believe.
So why then is it so hard for many of those same people to respect the rights of other people?
On top of that has been the labeling of anyone who disagrees with the passage of RFRA a progressive or a liberal.
Here are a few actual facts:
1: The law differed from federal law and the laws in many other states.
2: The legislature was warned this would happen by a large group of constitutional attorneys and they ignored the warning.
3: The bill was shoved through so quickly4: that most people had no idea it was happening till after the fact.
4: The driving force behind the bill was a small group of people who are heads of known hate groups. Micah Clark and Eric Miller most prominently.
5: The outrage before and after the passage of SB101 was bi-partisan. Conservatives and liberals alike came out against it. The leader of Freedom Indiana, the group leading the opposition, is a Republican operative.
6: After reading the law many businesses and organization including conservative ones and curches expressed concern and in some cases pulled their business from the sate. Within a week costing the state millions on top of destroying Pences hopes of further elected office.
freedom is being able to say no to someone ! and not be forced to do something and if they choose not to do
if they say no then have mobs of people threaten them and want to burn there place down and kill them !
does the person walking in have the freedom to go to another bakery or choose another photographer ? YES they do
does the person being forced to bake the cake or shoot the wedding have freedom to say no ! NO they do not
with say 1000 photographers in a state why would someone want to choose someone who does not want to shoot them ?
nobody would except someone cruising to cause problems
a check in place (the law) before the photographer could be sued was a good thing since it would stop stupid law suits !
it would be like you being allergic to peanuts then going to a peanut butter plant and suing them for hurting you and demand they stop business
agree the US and the world is so full of close minded ignorant people that have no clue and blindly follow the mob even when its wrong
sad for sure
Gun owners are nothing but a bunch of Inbreds who are overcompensating for their small package and the NRA is the lobby for gun manufactures that has bought off the Republicans.
See how easy it is to just lump together and dismiss an entire class of people. Well that above statement is just as backwards and wrong as the BS being thrown around here about the "gay mafia" and moral decline of our country.
I hate to say it but when it comes down to it a lot of member here are lying to themselves. They like to claim they are pro liberty and freedom. But in the end they are really only pro freedom when THEY agree with the freedom in question.
Freedom to own a gun? Great!
Freedom to worship the religion they personally choose? Great!
Freedom to be in a relationship with whomever a person chooses? Whoa! wait a second here that is just wrong. We can't have that. It is the destruction of our country.
Freedom to follow a different religion than is approved by your religion? holy shit no! You are wrong and can't do that. If you do then you are a terrorist/going to hell/evil/destroying our country.
Freedom to have access to the same services you do? Not in my country. I don't like you so you have no rights!
The list goes on.
It is narrow minded and frankly it is exactly the problem we face as a country. The rallying cry seems to be "how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance" Well guess what? I am tolerant of peoples beliefs when they disagree with mine. But no i am not tolerant of bigots who are so narrow minded they can't see past their own limited experiences in life.
You don't get to pick and choose which groups get the same freedoms you do based on what you find icky or what your own personal chosen religion states. Every member on here who is a christian is a protected class as well as the majority in this country. You don't get to deny others the same right.
On top of that has been the labeling of anyone who disagrees with the passage of RFRA a progressive or a liberal.
Here are a few actual facts:
1: The law differed from federal law and the laws in many other states.
In three fourths of the states with RFRAs, homosexuals are not a "protected class".
The operative text of the IN RFRA is virtually identical to the Fed RFRA.
The major "differences" identified have been accepted in many Federal courts. The biggest one has been argued in favor of by Holder's DOJ and is largely irrelevant anyways (applicability in private party disputes).
...The “purist” libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregation—which had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated “private” discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.
We ultimately settled on rules barring race discrimination in employment, housing, and access to “public accommodations”—which, though it clearly restricted the associational freedom of some racist business owners within a limited domain, was nevertheless justifiable under the circumstances: The interest in restoring civic equality was so compelling that it trumped the interest in associational choice within that sphere. But we didn’t deny the existence of that interest—appalling as the racist’s exercise of it might be—and continue to recognize it in other domains. A racist can still invite only neighbors of certain races to dinner parties, or form exclusive private associations, or as a prospective employee choose to consider only job offers from firms run or staffed primarily by members of their own race. Partly, of course, this is because regulations in these domains would be difficult or impossible to enforce—but partly it’s because the burden on associational freedom involved in requiring nondiscrimination in these realms would be unacceptably high.
Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some don’t. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We don’t see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while I’ve seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.
Rather, the actual cases we’ve been hearing about recently involve bigoted* photographers or bakers—who run small businesses but are effectively acting as short-term employees—who balk at providing their services to gay couples who are planning weddings. (I take for granted that gay marriage should, of course, be legal everywhere.) What’s the balance of burdens in these cases? The discrimination involved here doesn’t plausibly deny the gay couples effective civic equality: There are plenty of bakers and photographers who would be only too happy to take their money. Under the circumstances, the urge to either fine or compel the services of these misguided homophobes comes across as having less to do with avoiding dire practical consequences for the denied couple than it does with symbolically punishing a few retrograde yokels for their reprehensible views. And much as I’d like for us all to pressure them to change those views—or at the very least shame them into changing their practices—if there turn out to be few enough of them that they’re not creating a systemic problem for gay citizens, it’s hard to see an interest sufficiently compelling to justify legal compulsion—especially in professions with an inherently expressive character, like photography. In short: Yes, these people are assholes, but that alone doesn’t tell us how to balance their interest in expressive association against competing interests at this particular point in our history.
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/
3: The bill was shoved through so quickly that most people had no idea it was happening till after the fact.
That's what she said.
Look I'll be honest here: I haven't read the bill, and I would suspect most here haven't either. With that said, I feel that any bill touting itself as a "religious freedom" bill would be geared toward providing protection involving religious ceremonies. Anything other than that would contradict the first amendment. The problems arise when the government then finds the need to define the term "religious ceremony" when said ceremony has already been defined by the religion for centuries.(That's text-book redefinition, for those confused.) A wedding is a religious ceremony well defined by various religions. If someone holds a belief about how a wedding is to be handled they should have protection under the law to either partake or to abstain. If they abstain, they are in no way preventing the ceremony from proceeding. It can proceed without their participation. That's not discrimination. That would be freedom of choice for both parties involved.
Conversely, if my religious ceremony involved cutting the skin on my palm before sealing the deal with a handshake while buying a house, my realtor would not be required to partake by law. Now, the statist type would file a suit to get the entire nation buying homes with a bloody hepatitis hand "because...discrimination." It seems a ridiculous example, but it is exactly what is happening surrounding the religious cerimony of marriage. It flys in the face of freedom and instead provides special rights to some, all the while shouting "Equality! Equality! Equality!"
In three fourths of the states with RFRAs, homosexuals are not a "protected class".
The operative text of the IN RFRA is virtually identical to the Fed RFRA.
The major "differences" identified have been accepted in many Federal courts. The biggest one has been argued in favor of by Holder's DOJ and is largely irrelevant anyways (applicability in private party disputes).
That is actually not true. The text is different in some very important ways. Specifically the Federal text is geared towards protecting individual rights and is narrowly written. The Indiana law was geared towards businesses and is extremely broad.
Averageman
04-04-15, 09:33
That is actually not true. The text is different in some very important ways. Specifically the Federal text is geared towards protecting individual rights and is narrowly written. The Indiana law was geared towards businesses and is extremely broad.
I'm not sure how you keep arguing this an refuse to look at the facts.
1) You have no right to force a private citizen to perform a private transaction that goes against his religious beliefs.
2) If you are requesting a wedding ceremony in a private setting you have no right to force other outside of your party to participate, specifically if it is against their religious beliefs.
3) If you are requesting a marriage to be performed, that is perfectly legal.
4) If you want a marriage to be performed and a wedding ceremony you must make the arrangements. The State will not force those who have a deep rooted morale obligation based upon their faith to support your wedding ceremony at the point of legal action.
Seems pretty simple to me.
You make the same arrangements everyone else does. You find a vendor willing to meet your needs and desires for a private transaction based upon an exchange of goods and services. The State will not force their participation, if they have a religious objection to participating.
I'm not sure why you cannot see this is right, morale and religiously sound.
I find the idea of same sex marriage ludicrous.
And, yes I find gays in general repulsive, most especially flamer types. They make my skin crawl... Lesbians I find repulsive, but not much less.
So yeah, if you care to call me a homo phobe I wouldn't get upset.
That said, if a business is serving the public, but they they don't like gays, blacks, jews, muslims, mormons, etc. I don't agree they get to refuse service by using religion as tool for refusal. To do so is wrong.
My take: If you serve the public, you can't use religion as an excuse to discriminate.
Period.
I'm not sure how you keep arguing this an refuse to look at the facts.
1) You have no right to force a private citizen to perform a private transaction that goes against his religious beliefs.
2) If you are requesting a wedding ceremony in a private setting you have no right to force other outside of your party to participate, specifically if it is against their religious beliefs.
3) If you are requesting a marriage to be performed, that is perfectly legal.
4) If you want a marriage to be performed and a wedding ceremony you must make the arrangements. The State will not force those who have a deep rooted morale obligation based upon their faith to support your wedding ceremony at the point of legal action.
Actually the Civi rights act would disagree with you on this.
Averageman
04-04-15, 12:06
Actually the Civi rights act would disagree with you on this.
No, you're wrong.
I would gladly again explain why, but it is useless to provide an explaination to a closed mind.
I will bow out now, you all have fun with this.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.