- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,343
- Reaction score
- 82,729
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'm waiting for Starbucks to announce it's closing all of its stores in Indiana. They should be able to do that this afternoon. It's so easy!
The way this law has been twisted by the easily led who read Think Progress and believe they have any clue about the law is a sight to behold. Again, it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. I think everyone should get married - yes, gay people too - and I really don't care what people's preferences of a lover are, so I disagree with the religious right who think being gay is a sin. But if they believe it, that's their choice.
The ridiculous "what ifs" that came out in this thread (and others - there's another one where someone decided that because of this law, if you're black, you won't be able to get food on your family vacation in Indiana - not kidding) are what's wrong here. Just like the stupid what ifs from the Hobby Lobby decision. The people who put these absurd things out there are getting it from Think Progress and other hard left sites. That's why hyper partisan sites are so dangerous.
Yeah, they'll boycott the Final Four. :lol: Of course! But guess what? It will be "Um, we'll boycott it next year! Yeah!".
State travel to Indiana. :lamo That's my favorite. I'm watching Dannel Malloy getting owned by Joe Scarborough right now. I wish Joe would ask him just how much state travel to Indiana the CT lawmakers did. Oh, he says most fraternities are based in Indiana, and they should make a statement by just getting up and moving out of Indiana. What is with these idiot leftists who have no idea what it takes to move a business to another state?
Simpleχity;1064479888 said:Neighboring Illinois has a RFRA law. But it also has a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.
Texas and Missouri have RFRA laws. But they have sections in their RFRA laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.
Indiana has no such statewide/RFRA protections. Indiana legislators rejected such protections when deliberating the Indiana RFRA law.
One has to ask ... why?
Simpleχity;1064479888 said:Neighboring Illinois has a RFRA law. But it also has a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.
Texas and Missouri have RFRA laws. But they have sections in their RFRA laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.
Indiana has no such statewide/RFRA protections. Indiana legislators rejected such protections when deliberating the Indiana RFRA law.
One has to ask ... why?
Actually, neither do you. Yet you do. You've decided that no religion teaches its members that being gay isn't right. You keep saying it's only people's personal views and has nothing to do with their religion.
Just because you fell for the rhetoric doesn't mean it was right. This is part of the Great falling away.
Because there is a Constitution and the Civil Rights act. You didn't think because they had nothing specific that they still wouldn't follow the law, did you?
Look at all the shouting the left end is doing over this law. I guess they must be wrong. In fact, I'm sure of it.
Okay, I will.
That should be legal.
I certainly don't approve of it, but there is no rational basis whatsover to compel them to give custom.
It is worth noting that during the time of Jim Crow laws commonly made such discrimination mandatory - that is equally unacceptable intrusion into the property rights of a business owner.
The free market is a voluntary exchange of goods, services, and property. The government has no business interfering with such voluntary exchanges.
wouldnt that same answer apply to saying theres no need for the RFRA in the first place then?
My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?
just like your point, the constitution and civils rights act exist so you are saying theres no need to add the part that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation so why have the RFRA. you feel its not needed. SO same
wouldnt that same answer apply to saying theres no need for the RFRA in the first place then?
My rights as a christian are already fully protected by the constitution, anti-discrimination laws and many other things, if i lived in Indiana what would this bill do for me that those things dont already do?
just like your point, the constitution and civils rights act exist so you are saying theres no need to add the part that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation so why have the RFRA. you feel its not needed. SO same
Maybe you would feel more comfortable living somewhere other than TX.
That correlates to indoctrination, not intelligence
Mornin AJ :2wave: From Post 1957 the Pro Gay Rights Attorney and Law professor explained it out as to why Indiana needed it.
To further quell the left's hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA. I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?
The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law. Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks. If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration. But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.
In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis......snip~
You are assuming that I am "non-religious"....actually once again you are wrong. I have studied the life of Christ and try to live every day of my life in accordance with the example that he led. That is why it is disgusting to see the perversion of his name for the sake of politics.Admittedly not a scriptorian and one that has chapter and verse memorized, but were there a lot of verses where Jesus taught against the sin of prostitution? And yet...
Go forth...and sin no more.
What of the apostles? Did they teach on about sin? Was there mention of the sin of homosexuality?
Again...non religious people like to trot out religion...when it suits them.
Maybe you missed it so I'll say it again. Higher education means higher indoctrination, not higher intelligenceLike I said....you guys have no answer to counter the fact that the higher educated one is correlates directly with the political spectrum of "liberal". So when you don't have an answer...your only reply is "Its those gosh darn liberal colleges them liberals are all attendin"
I actually agree with the sentiment of your objection, I just wanted you to see where the other poster's attitude on the subject was coming from.
Quote Originally Posted by Blemonds View Post
Yes. All the words of the Bible are the words of Jesus
I am a Christian and I understand that the whole Bible is the teachings of Christ
1.)RFRA is needed to protect citizens from government laws that are not necessarily religious in nature, but significantly burden a religious practice. Indiana's law added additional protection from civil suits.
2.)Does it offer carte blanche to do whatever you want in the name of religion? Not in the least bit, as it only provides you with defense option to be weighed by the courts.
Maybe you missed it so I'll say it again. Higher education means higher indoctrination, not higher intelligence
Really. You must really like the part where he says "pick and choose whichever parts of the bible that dont conflict with your lifestyle choices."You are assuming that I am "non-religious"....actually once again you are wrong. I have studied the life of Christ and try to live every day of my life in accordance with the example that he led. That is why it is disgusting to see the perversion of his name for the sake of politics.
Really. You must really like the part where he says "pick and choose whichever parts of the bible that dont conflict with your lifestyle choices."
The only perversion of his name can be seen on threads like this where people constantly try to trot out Christ as a weapon.
Go forth...and sin no more. He loved the prostitute...he promoted love. But he didnt excuse the sinful behavior. Ever.
Sin no more.
Simpleχity;1064479888 said:Neighboring Illinois has a RFRA law. But it also has a statewide law that prohibits discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.
Texas and Missouri have RFRA laws. But they have sections in their RFRA laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation.
Indiana has no such statewide/RFRA protections. Indiana legislators rejected such protections when deliberating the Indiana RFRA law.
One has to ask ... why?
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?