- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,439
- Reaction score
- 39,016
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. Perhaps the answer is a constitutional amendment to confer that status on LGBT people.
Pence hit the nail on the head today at his press conference. Gross mischaracterization of the law and sloppy journalism enabled the liars to win this time.
Horse****. Remove federal judge decisions and the facts are clear and obvious. Nationwide...the gay community **** themselves because the owner of Chik-Fil-A dared to support family values. Their ridiculous response was to schedule idiotic and impotent displays and protests. The result? hell...even gay people thought what they were doing was stupid and told them to knock it the **** off.
You go right ahead and keep twisting and spinning trying to make your version of Christ fit the facts. It wont work.
Sin no more. If you are going to try to use Christ as an argument, you will get the TOTAL comment. He did challenge those that would condemn the prostitute. to her his reply...Go forth...Sin no more.
I was counting you among the well-intentioned who have been taken in.
We do need a sarcasm font.
The point made was to enable discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.
Human rights are not a big thing in the US or just certain Conservative States?
Pence hit the nail on the head today at his press conference. Gross mischaracterization of the law and sloppy journalism enabled the liars to win this time.
OK, but the "gross mischaracterization" was at least ALSO by supporters of the bill, who Pence invited to the bill signing. You keep ignoring that. Not sure why - bottom line is they f'd up and are paying the price for appealing to bigots to support the bill because it would enable discrimination.
And sorry but Pence is an idiot. If he wanted to tamp down the "lies" about the bill not enabling discrimination, all he had to do was answer George's question just one time out of the six times he was asked if it would allow for discrimination. He chose not to. Stupid move, Governor!
Gov. This bill is NOT about discrimination.
George: So, Gov. will businesses be allowed to discriminate?
Gov. You know, George, it's, like, you know, not about that, see, it's about freedom and liberty.
Later. Gov: Why is everyone worried about the discrimination that I refused, SIX TIMES, to say is not facilitated about this bill. Gosh, I can't understand why there is any concern.... Lieberal media!!!
I was not being sarcastic. Were you? Freedom of religion is likewise constitutionally protected, and also falls in the category of human rights. I'm not religious myself, but I don't think it's necessary to oppress believers to liberate anyone else.
Taken in by what? I've read the legal analyses and it appears, based on the law as it stands today, that there isn't a big issue with the Indiana RFRA. What's just fact, however, is what motivated it and what supporters told the public - that it WAS at least a partial license to discriminate. I've posted the links, the picture of the guys making these claims standing RIGHT THERE with the Gov at the private bill signing are on this thread. The backlash is the bed those people made and I'm very happy to see them paying a price for getting in bed with anti-SSM/gay bigots.
You keep thinking that. And yet...the only true 'poll' is voting and the votes have CONSISTENTLY been in opposition to gay marriage.Really? Is this why the nationwide acceptance of marriage equality has grown at an exponential rate over the last 5 years? People by large majorities now support marriage equality all across America. It isn't just (as you want to try to argue...those pesky activist judges).
The reality is that we are living in the 21st century (no longer the 20th or 19th)...People are tired of bigotry and discrimination. Bigots will continue to pay the price for their bigotry and America will not allow people to try to use religion as a shield to practice their bigotry and discrimination.
People can continue to try to pervert the teachings of Christ and take his name in vain to try to push their right-wing social agenda.
The plain and simple truth is that if people who use the name of Christ to justify their bigotry actually understood his teachings and followed them....we wouldn't even be here having this conversation.
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these...my brethren....ye have done it unto me". "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you". Very simple precepts to follow.
LOL....more like Pence thought he could pass this POS bigoted law and no one would care. He was caught completely off guard because he didn't comprehend that we are living in the 21st century and people don't support bigotry and discrimination any more. He got the wrath of the American people. There was no mischaracterization here....if THAT is what it was, then there would be no need to change the law. The fact that he is asking for the law to be changed shows that he knows his hand was caught in the cookie jar and he's realizing that he was busted.
They are not being oppressed. Going into business is a personal choice that comes with a slew of rules, regs, laws and such.
They are not being oppressed. Going into business is a personal choice that comes with a slew of rules, regs, laws and such.
Decades ago. We are in the 21st century now. Check your calendar...and you probably want to pick up a bible too if you want to have an educated conversation about the teachings of Christ..You keep thinking that. And yet...the only true 'poll' is voting and the votes have CONSISTENTLY been in opposition to gay marriage.
Yes...charity towards others. Amen. Great concept...great standard.
Sin no more. Go forth...and sin no more.
He NEVER excused the sin. You shouldnt use Him in your arguments if you know the truth is going to make you wrong.
They are going to amend the law because the liars won this time.
Ah....beautiful. To you, sinful behavior has changed with the times (or rather...because you dont like it).Decades ago. We are in the 21st century now. Check your calendar...and you probably want to pick up a bible too if you want to have an educated conversation about the teachings of Christ..
Pence said today that he did a poor job on Sunday. I agree. nonetheless, I think he's right on the larger point.
So basically by people agreeing to open a business the government is not held to any constitutional amendment? Is that your argument?
Regardless, are you OK with LGBT being discriminated against?
Are those that could use the law based upon religious beliefs, bringing themselves into conflict with the separation of Church & State?
Don't recall suggesting that I doYeah I'm sure you follow the Old Testament word for word?
You know you don't, it's not possible.
Ah....beautiful. To you, sinful behavior has changed with the times (or rather...because you dont like it).
Its you that seems to struggle with the teachings of Christ. You want to use your highlighter and highlight the parts you like, and your sharpie and eliminate the parts you dont.
Keep in mind...YOU bring it up as an argument. Since you do, you have to LIVE with it.
Go forth...and sin no more. That doesnt change just because you want it to.
But there is a reason he did a poor job.
The only laws to protect anyone from discrimination should be those that restrict what government entities can doShould Indiana have a law protecting LGBT from discrimination?
He was caught off guard by the success of an attack based on vicious dishonesty.
Laws such as these come about due to SSM which will be decided shortly by SCOTUS.No.
That concept has no constitutional validity. They are not establishing a state religion or even trying to create one, so no, they are not in violation of the constitution.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.
Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"—Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?