1.) lmao as soon as i hear this i always laugh my ass off. What is the homosexual agenda? please tell us what it factually is.
also in the things that over step and try to give americans special tretment will fail and be removed, im all fine for protecting rights, just not special treatment which SOME religious people disgustingly want.
2.) i agree good thing nobody antidscrimaitnion laws and equal rights and civil rights dont "force acceptance" another repeated and failed strawman. Saying its forced acceptance is always a false and dishonest statement.
3.) im fine with that decision as its nothing like this on any level lol
4.) i understand thats what you think but its simply wrong. She in fact was discriminating against gays just like the court case says she was. No gay in the wedding no discrimination. If you do WEDDING pics then you do wedding pics period. especially if the other wedding pics have been for other religions, nonreligious weddings and remarriages . . all things that could be loosely argued just as much as gay weddings as being wrong based on religion. But magical the line is drawn at GAY which shows the hypocrisy and bigotry.
if the owner wanted to do things that were just subjectively based on heir religion they are free to do so but they dont get to have a public accommodation shop and serve OTHER things that violate the religion and its ok but then magically claim this thing is really wrong and not ok. Its a crock and complete BS.
so that easy question is "who gets to determine what is a violation of thier religious feelings and why and when its acceptable?
We are having a reasonable conversation, I'm showing the influence religion has had, and continues to have on politics. Wait, because I am a communist, I am not rational? I'm getting tired of this one liner BS.
Can you refuse service on the mere suspicion of someone being gay?
Say Larry Craig goes to a Christian bakery and orders urinal cakes?
1.)Then I'll repeat my question.
2.) What do you call it when merchants are dragged into court, expensive legal proceedings by the way, and fined for not serving homosexuals that want products and services for their weddings?
3.) Is that not being negatively affected?
where in the Constitution does it say the Bible is the law of the land.
You are letting your anti-religion beliefs dictate your responses and that's due to the communism you embrace...
I explained why churches are tax exempt, and why it's a perfectly understandable and reasonable. It's a measure put in place tseparatete the government from religious establishments, mainly as a fail-safe to ensure that the government can't infringe on the religious freedoms established in the first amendment of the Constitution.
You ignored that and claiming that the tax exempt status should forbid or prevent leaders of religious establishments from voicing political opinions, then transformed the conversation into a rant against religion and it's place in America's history and culture.
Sorry, but I'm not going to have that conversation because it isn't appropriate to this thread, or one I signed up for....
This will clearly be declared unconstitutional if for nothing else being impractical in practice unless there's a companion bill that requires gay people to wear the scarlet letter. Otherwise, how would businesses know whether or not Governor Pence is gay? After all, there seem to be a lot of politicians capable of hiding their true sexuality, and politicians aren't known to be the sharpest knives in the drawer. Similar to the nonsense in Oregon, requiring businesses to declare their bigotry, this is just more sad stupidity.
It is NOT identical to the Fed law, or Illinois law. All Indiana had to do would be to copy's Illinois law, but they didn't. They wrote their own which is much broader and has much fewer protections in it. Indy's RFRA is much different. The Indiana GOP Legislators and Pence just got caught pandering to extremists in the GOP.
Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of “person,” which “includecorporations, . . . as well as individuals.” 1 U. S. C. §1. The Court has entertained RFRA and free-exercise claims brought by nonprofit corporations. See, e.g., Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficiente União do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418. And HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations. Pp. 19–20. (ii) HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot “exercise . . . religion.” They offer no persuasive explanation for this conclusion. :shock:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
1.)A lot of people who are not proponents of the homosexual agenda would say it is homosexuals who want special treatment.
2.)I don't know what you are agreeing with. Certainly not the Supreme Court in Hurley or Dale, the decisions I was referring to. In both cases, the Court held the state law unconstitutional for forcing the public accommodation involved to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. Apparently you think that in those decisions, the Court was not only making "failed strawman" arguments but also making a "false and dishonest statement." I'm sure the justices would give your opinion about that all the weight it deserves.
3.)You just finished saying how false and dishonest it was to argue that these laws unconstitutionally force people to propound points of view they do not believe. But that is exactly the basis--government-compelled speech--for the Court's decision in Hurley, which you say you are fine with. Which is it?
4.)Of course Elaine was not discriminating against this woman just because she was a lesbian. She would gladly have done other types of photographs for her.
5.) She simply disapproves of homosexual marriage, and if that makes a person a hypocrite or a bigo
6.) then so are many millions of other Americans besides her.
7.) I suppose to a proponent of the homosexual agenda, anyone who dares disagree with their views is necessarily a bigot.
8.) I would say that kind of narrow-minded intolerance is itself bigotry.
9.)Oh, I see. You and people who agree with you think you should be the final arbiters of whose religious beliefs are sincere, and whose are not. The law doesn't work that way. The Court in discussed in Hobby Lobby discussed in detail how its inquiry into the sincerity of the religious belief works. In that case, it found it was irrelevant whether some other person might argue that the four contraceptives Hobby Lobby's owners objected to were not really abortifacients. All that mattered was that they believed that they were, and therefore violated their religious belief that abortion is immoral.
9.)That is anything but an easy question, and it will be up to the courts in the thirty-plus states that now have RFRA's to determine that in each case.
[h=2]UVA Law Prof Who Supports Gay Marriage Explains Why He Supports Indiana's Religious Freedom Law[/h]9:32 PM, Mar 29, 2015 • By JOHN MCCORMACKDouglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, writes in an email:
Read more...
Can you refuse service on the mere suspicion of someone being gay?
Say Larry Craig goes to a Christian bakery and orders urinal cakes?
You can refuse service for a number of things, and it's perfectly legal. Haven't you seen the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs anywhere in your life?
This gay thing is just the pet project of the legal arm of the left wing. That's really all it amounts to.
No, not misinformed. Sanctioned "religious" bigotry, nothing less. They have already lost some business, I hope they lose a lot more. I read in Texass a similar law supported a cop who wouldn't work a gay pride parade. Very nice, I'm sure God approves.
White House doesn't dispute it. etc.
Simpleχity;1064472851 said:Pence did not answer directly when asked six times on This Week with George Stephanopoulos whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers.
so you think refusing gay service at a bakery is bad and NOT with in reason
but refusing a wedding cake to gays (even though they give it to everybody else including other religions or non religious weddings which is completely hypocritical) is ok and with in reason of religious freedom
id like to know whats that is based on?
also what if the person owns apartments instead?
Way to show that you don't have a very good understanding of the issue.
Are you familiar with public accommodation laws?
And you have a bias in support of religion, see how this works out? I agree, best not to discuss it.
You are wrong about the religious bias, but right about ending the discussion.
For the record, I'm not a Christian, nor am I a religious person... You've mistaken my pro-constitution bias for a defense of religion.
1.)I already made it clear exactly what it was based on.
2.)People of faith believe that certain actions are forbidden, or what Christians would label a sin. I'm not a Christian or a religious person, but most people of faith are also taught (I'm paraphrasing here, ) to hate the sin, not the sinner. Another way of looking at that is, even though you don't approve religiously of what a persons chooses to do, it's God's job to pass judgment upon them, not yours.
3.)Refusing to serve gay people is passing judgment on homosexuals, which in my view is wrong.
4.) Selling a gay person a doughnut is not participating in, or endorsing a homosexual lifestyle.
5.) However, a baker who views gay marriage as a sin and sees it as an affront to his or her religious beliefs, should not be forced to be a contributor, paid or otherwise, to a ceremony that they believe to be sacrilegious.
6.)That is condemning the sin (gay marraige) as opposed to condemning the sinner (a gay person).
7,)Refusing to rent an apartment to someone who is gay, is wrong for the same reasons as I stated in the example above. Providing shelter to a gay person isn't an endorsement of their lifestyle or participating in something that is sacrilegious.
8.) Now if a gay person said I would like to rent this apartment to host gay sex parties, they deserve to be refused for being such a total moron.
Indiana Governor: This Is the Same Religious Freedom Law Obama Voted for in Illinois
"I just can't account for the hostility that's been directed at our state," he said. "I've been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill."
SB 101 will help protect individuals, Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages and those supporting government recognition and approval of gender identity (male cross-dressers).
Right, because the bill makes no mention of gays. It's a hypothetical that can only be answered by the merchant and his sincerely held religious beliefs. The law doesn't deal with the merchant, it deals with how governmental institutions react to the merchant. He can't be persecuted for applying his sincerely held religious beliefs in his daily life, in and out of his business.
It does say the government can not prohibit the exercise of religion. Telling wedding chapples, wedding cake makers and etc that they have to perform a gay wedding, make a gay wedding cake and ect is a violation of their 1st amendment right to exercise their religion.
5.) they arent forced
6.) just like serving blacks at the back door, still serving them just not with the whites . . . its crap . . fact remains if the people in the wedding werent gay then they would get served, its still the gay person being denied a service, not ALL service but some serve. Its like hiring women but not making allowing them to be bosses, its disgusting..
7.) geez and what if its a gay couple, wouldnt the same weak argument about the cake for the wedding hold up based on that false logic? are you claiming that providing the cake is worse than providing the living faclitiies?
why?
8.) this is just stupid . . .gay sex parties are ZERO reason to be refused unless some other rules are being violated . . . .
people in apartment have parties all the time, unless the party is illegal or breaks other rules like noise, capacity limits etc the type of party doesnt matter