That has nothing to do with the post you quoted.lol you don't think oppressive laws have ever led to violent reaction before? Sometimes it's completely justified even
Are you sure that's the case? Generally speaking, a single corporation holding a monopoly on hospital services in such a large area would not be legal under the Clayton Antitrust Act.
Yes, food is essential. Banana smoothies? Not so much.
Liberty is always a balancing act. For me, personally, the government should only infringe on one's liberty when it GREATLY benefits the people and doesn't overburden them. For example, I am fine with not allowing explosives on commercial planes. The tradeoff is worth it.
Preventing people from getting their meds is not worth a person's right to do whatever they want. Preventing someone from getting a cake is.
I do limit this to private non-essential services. Publicly traded corporations should not be able to discriminate. They receive several financial advantages and protections under the law from the government and if they want to enjoy those advantages then they shouldn't be able to discriminate. And of course most grocery stores in the US are publicly traded corporations.
I think laws should change with the times. I think there was a time in our recent history that public accommodation laws made sense. But I believe we have advanced enough that they are no longer needed. The overwhelming majority of business owners just want to make a profit.
And here we go again.
The lefts generic, empty and baseless charges of " hate " and " Bigotry ". Its a silly attempt to bully your way into relevance.
No need for thoughtful diaglogue, just start throwing around vindictives when you dont get your way.
You realize there are consequences to calling everyone who disagrees with you childish names, right ?
It marginalizes your position and cheapens your agenda. No one but a few like minded people agree with you and you just wind up isolating yourself and setting yourself up for a huge backlash from the vast majority of Americans who you've just insulted
I like it. Keep it up !! Good plan !! Lol.
You sound like the bigot to me.Yeah that's why support for national gay rights keeps going up. That is some backlash!
And yes those who oppose it are BIGOTS
Mike Penace should think about the legacy he is leaving for his grandchildren and their grandchildren. Not many people can say their grandpa was a state governor, and if I could, I would want to be proud of his actions. In 20 more years, his actions are going look as ass backwards as supporting racial segregation.
Leaving already?ok goodbye mr "liberal"
I have a lot of rentals. I admit, I discriminate. Over many years of renting I have a good profile of good and bad renters. And this profile does show a pattern with specific groups of people. This includes homosexuals. Do I tell them outright, "Sorry, your type has an issue with paying your bills.." Um, No.
If this is something you feel passionate about, you can certainly start/support an effort to amend the Constitution and try get the actual law to be more in line with what you think it ought to be.That is besides the point. If someone has a heart attack and needs to be whisked to the nearest hospital...you see where this is going?
Yes, already mentioned.The hospitals all receive federal funding and insurance like medicaid/medicare and are therefore all subject to discrimination and public accomodation laws,.
To "win" they would have to do so without losing in the near future the $50 million gamecon, the NCAA final four, that tech company with billions, tourist income, multi million dollar lawsuits over this unconstitutional law, masses of educated young residents who aren't gay etc. But their hopes to create an anti gay version of the "black codes" without any retribution are a complete fantasy
Take a look at the incredibly short list of "RFRA" cases that succeed and then try to convince me that this will offer ANY protection in those 12 counties that currently ban discrimination.
Believe me, gays who can afford it have been flocking out of the ghetto midwest for decades.
It was the facts. They win every time.I would like to say that AGENTJ is so awesome!
Who was it that scared him off? Henrin? Good work man!
Whether or not I see something wrong with it is immaterial.
I think it's wrong when it rains when I planned on doing something outdoors that required nice weather, but it rains anyway. That's how the weather works.
And in a constitutional democracy, you can get the govt to do anything, but only if you get enough people to agree with you. That's how our govt works.
And if you think that people should not be able to have the govt they want to have, but only be allowed to have the govt you think they should be allowed to have, then you are just as coercive and dismissive of "liberty" as anyone else.
They shove their lifestyle in the faces of too many Americans and it's coming back to bite their butts. When they were simply an oddity that you knew existed but, it didn't affect your day-to-day then no one hardly noticed or cared. You come out and demand everyone accept you or get sued or thrown in jail and people take offence.
I get what you are saying. I don't like gays flaunt their healthy bodies and nice clothes in my face. It makes me look bad.
I've never gone to sell something and then withdraw the offer because of any of those thing, even when I could legally do so. Just because you are not like that doesn't that there are not people out there like that. Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that most of us would not discriminate even were we allowed to do so. But there is a major difference between what one should be legally allowed to do and what they would do.
Consumerism works both ways, that's what's beautiful about it. For instance there are many, many companies I refuse to do business with specifically and exclusively because of their public political stances.
See how that works?
Tim-
Ok, so we're settled, in Indiana, it's ok to discriminate because democracy.
Please, the kind of trash who push for these laws live in shanty towns where everyone knows everyone
The original intent of RFRA was to protect NA religious practices. The 1993 federal bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY), easily passed in both houses of a majority Democratic Congress, and was signed into law by President Clinton. I highly doubt the 1993 legislators and Clinton ever envisioned this legislation as an enabling tool for discrimination and prejudice against the LGBT community.its not protecting anybody, its infringing on others rights and why when push comes to shove it will completely fail and help solidify equal rights, its awesome actually
So you wish to end discrimination by calling people trash? That seems more like the problem than the solution.
No, it's just a factual statement
Why must everything i say or do be part of some grand strategy to win bigots over? I'd rather just give them what they deserve
Simpleχity;1064466747 said:The original intent of RFRA was to protect NA religious practices. The 1993 federal bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY), easily passed in both houses of a majority Democratic Congress, and was signed into law by President Clinton. I highly doubt the 1993 legislators and Clinton ever envisioned this legislation as an enabling tool for discrimination and prejudice against the LGBT community.
So only your bigotry is OK, got it. Can you identify any "shanty town" areas in Indiana so I can do some more research on this phenomenon?