A Solution to the Indiana Law Protecting Religion (That 82% Support BTW)

[Silhouette]

Butt sex killed my friend so yeah, I think it's icky. You bet. He was "gay" because he was molested as a boy by a gay man and habituated to gay sex by mental wounds. Like so many other gays and AIDS-terrorists.

Talking about your imaginary friend again?

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A solution to the Indiana law that says Christians can refuse to enable a 'gay marriage' is found in understanding concepts #1 & #2 below. I wrote this post in response to a comment "ChrisL" made.

Any service having to do conspicously or overtly for a "gay marriage" may be able to be objected to by Christians. !

Hmmmm have you ever read the Constitution?

What makes you think that Christians are allowed special exemptions under the Constitution?

What part of the First Amendment are you having trouble with? The reading of it?

Lets look at it again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Nothing there about special exemptions for Christians that Silhouette suggested.

Well, other than their exercise of religion being exempt from prohibitive laws.

But we don't want to split hairs.

Silhouette wants Christians- and Christians owners of business's to be specifically exempt from laws such as Public Accommodation laws.

Nothing in the First Amendment about Christians getting a pass when every Jew, Muslim and Atheist has to comply.

1) Why do leftists always assume that everyone else sees the world the way they do? You assume that because YOU think PA laws are wonderful, everyone else does too, and their positions are therefore proceeding from that assumption. Consider that maybe people don't want Christians exempt from PA laws; maybe they think PA laws themselves are the imposition on Constitutional freedoms.

2) Who ever said anyone was advocating that only Christians have their religious beliefs respected? I realize that YOU probably are very elitist and exclusionary and defend only the rights of those you agree with, because you're a leftist. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that way.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmm have you ever read the Constitution?

What makes you think that Christians are allowed special exemptions under the Constitution?

What part of the First Amendment are you having trouble with? The reading of it?

Lets look at it again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Nothing there about special exemptions for Christians that Silhouette suggested.

Well, other than their exercise of religion being exempt from prohibitive laws.

But we don't want to split hairs.

Silhouette wants Christians- and Christians owners of business's to be specifically exempt from laws such as Public Accommodation laws.

Nothing in the First Amendment about Christians getting a pass when every Jew, Muslim and Atheist has to comply.

1) Why do leftists always assume that everyone else sees the world the way they do? You assume that because YOU think PA laws are wonderful, everyone else does too, and their positions are therefore proceeding from that assumption. Consider that maybe people don't want Christians exempt from PA laws; maybe they think PA laws themselves are the imposition on Constitutional freedoms.
.

Why do you always assume that you know what I think?

Silhouette's OP is very clear- she suggests that Christians(and mentions no other faith) be exempt from PA laws. She doesn't suggest repealing PA laws- just that Christians shouldn't have to comply with them.

If you want to argue that public accommodation laws should be ended- then I look forward to Conservatives- and the Republican Party taking on that project- feel free to start campaigning to reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Skylar]

Hmmmm have you ever read the Constitution?

What makes you think that Christians are allowed special exemptions under the Constitution?

What part of the First Amendment are you having trouble with? The reading of it?

Lets look at it again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Nothing there about special exemptions for Christians that Silhouette suggested.

Well, other than their exercise of religion being exempt from prohibitive laws.

But we don't want to split hairs.

Silhouette wants Christians- and Christians owners of business's to be specifically exempt from laws such as Public Accommodation laws.

Nothing in the First Amendment about Christians getting a pass when every Jew, Muslim and Atheist has to comply.

1) Why do leftists always assume that everyone else sees the world the way they do? You assume that because YOU think PA laws are wonderful, everyone else does too, and their positions are therefore proceeding from that assumption. Consider that maybe people don't want Christians exempt from PA laws; maybe they think PA laws themselves are the imposition on Constitutional freedoms.

I think PA laws are authoritative, reasonable, and constitutional. And the extensive judicial review they've been subject to has found the same. You're certainly welcome to disagree. But your disagreement doesn't affect any of those factors above.

2) Who ever said anyone was advocating that only Christians have their religious beliefs respected? I realize that YOU probably are very elitist and exclusionary and defend only the rights of those you agree with, because you're a leftist. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that way.

That would be the conservatives that have advocated and passed laws that forbid sharia law. Despite Sharla being deeply entwined with the religious beliefs of many Muslims. That would also be the conservatives that rallied against Muslims being able to build places of worship, as in the case of opposition to 'victory mosques' in NY. That would also be the conservative posters here that have called for Islam to be purged from the US, for all Korans to be burned, for all Mosques to be banned.

Oddly, they've never called for similar treatment for Christians.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What part of the First Amendment are you having trouble with? The reading of it?

Lets look at it again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Nothing there about special exemptions for Christians that Silhouette suggested.

Well, other than their exercise of religion being exempt from prohibitive laws.

But we don't want to split hairs.

Silhouette wants Christians- and Christians owners of business's to be specifically exempt from laws such as Public Accommodation laws.

Nothing in the First Amendment about Christians getting a pass when every Jew, Muslim and Atheist has to comply.

1) Why do leftists always assume that everyone else sees the world the way they do? You assume that because YOU think PA laws are wonderful, everyone else does too, and their positions are therefore proceeding from that assumption. Consider that maybe people don't want Christians exempt from PA laws; maybe they think PA laws themselves are the imposition on Constitutional freedoms.
.

Why do you always assume that you know what I think?

Silhouette's OP is very clear- she suggests that Christians(and mentions no other faith) be exempt from PA laws. She doesn't suggest repealing PA laws- just that Christians shouldn't have to comply with them.

If you want to argue that public accommodation laws should be ended- then I look forward to Conservatives- and the Republican Party taking on that project- feel free to start campaigning to reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Actually, I assume you don't think at all.

Silhouette's OP addresses specifically the question of Christians, because it is Christians who are being targeted. This does not necessarily mean that ONLY Christians should have their religious beliefs respected without infringement.

We've BEEN arguing the correctness of PA laws all this time. The fact that you just realized what people were saying isn't relevant to anything except the continuing low esteem in which most people hold you.

I look forward to leftists someday getting a glimmering of the fact that they don't get to tell people what to do, who to be, or how to practice what they believe. Right now, every time you open your mouth, you reveal the most appallingly ignorant hubris.

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you always assume that you know what I think?

Silhouette's OP is very clear- she suggests that Christians(and mentions no other faith) be exempt from PA laws. She doesn't suggest repealing PA laws- just that Christians shouldn't have to comply with them.

If you want to argue that public accommodation laws should be ended- then I look forward to Conservatives- and the Republican Party taking on that project- feel free to start campaigning to reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Except that race has nothing to do with behaviors. THAT is the debate I look forward to, the "acquired deviant sex behaviors as a cult are = to race" debate. I think in that discussion, no stone should be left unturned on what makes homoesexuals tick. Sound good to you Syriusly? Or is a debate only OK as long as you approve of its content and how far it can go in exploring behavioral etiologies? Should we ask Anne Heche?...

 

[Skylar]

Why do you always assume that you know what I think?

Silhouette's OP is very clear- she suggests that Christians(and mentions no other faith) be exempt from PA laws. She doesn't suggest repealing PA laws- just that Christians shouldn't have to comply with them.

If you want to argue that public accommodation laws should be ended- then I look forward to Conservatives- and the Republican Party taking on that project- feel free to start campaigning to reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Except that race has nothing to do with behaviors. THAT is the debate I look forward to, the "acquired deviant sex behaviors as a cult are = to race" debate. I think in that discussion, no stone should be left unturned on what
makes homoesexuals tick.

You claim that any citation of a case that involves race is irrelevant to gays and their rights. Yet between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the Supreme Court cites 4 different raced based cases when describing how the rights of gays cannot be violated by State law.

So I have you dismissing any race based case. And the Supreme Court citing them 4 times. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you always assume that you know what I think?

Silhouette's OP is very clear- she suggests that Christians(and mentions no other faith) be exempt from PA laws. She doesn't suggest repealing PA laws- just that Christians shouldn't have to comply with them.

If you want to argue that public accommodation laws should be ended- then I look forward to Conservatives- and the Republican Party taking on that project- feel free to start campaigning to reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Except that race has nothing to do with behaviors. THAT is the debate I look forward to, the "acquired deviant sex behaviors as a cult are = to race" ...

I didn't mention race- that is all you Silhouette. That an your bizarre bigotry towards homosexuals merely because of whom they love.

Silhouette's OP is very clear- she suggests that Christians(and mentions no other faith) be exempt from PA laws. She doesn't suggest repealing PA laws- just that Christians shouldn't have to comply with them.

If you want to argue that public accommodation laws should be ended- then I look forward to Conservatives- and the Republican Party taking on that project- feel free to start campaigning to reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Silhouette]

Except that race has nothing to do with behaviors. THAT is the debate I look forward to, the "acquired deviant sex behaviors as a cult are = to race" ...

I didn't mention race- that is all you Silhouette. That an your bizarre bigotry towards homosexuals merely because of whom they love..

Define "love". Shall we ask Anne Heche to define it? "Your honor, the first witness I'll call is Ms. Anne Heche..."

 

[JoeB131]

Define "love". Shall we ask Anne Heche to define it? "Your honor, the first witness I'll call is Ms. Anne Heche..."

So how is that any different than all the straights that hook up at bars or on line or whatever?