Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[dblack]

'98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.


>>>>>

i was going to post that earlier in the thread. A classic Onion bit.

 

[GibsonSG]

Oh. you thought you could come right in here and refute me , huh ?

1. OF COURSE THEY DO, and everyone knows it. Stop talking stupid.

2. Your statement calling it absurd is what is absurd. When I was in the military, if the guys would have suspected anyone in the barracks was queer, that "guy" would have been on his way back home in 5 minutes. Same thing today.

3. For you to call this absurd is beyond absurd. it's BIZARRE. You are deranged.

4. I'll think about anything I choose to think about. Imposing queer sex upon the public's eyes is unacceptable, and should be illegal. In many places it is.

5. Harm is harm whether to queers or heteros. And what harms the queer, harms his family members also.

6. Same as 5.

7. OF COURSE they are (you're making this too easy for me)

8. It could only be related to homosexual behavior. There could be no other explanation. (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)

9. Um..yes. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

1. No, they don't. Pedophiles do.
2. Absurd statement. The military allowed gays in, you showered with some.
3. Speculation at best.
4. Just stop thinking about it. So you're against "land of the free"? Not free for gays?
5. Gays only spread aids to other gays, so no harm to heterosexuals. heteros get it as well.
6. That website also had an article titled: Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured.
7. No, only homophobes are affected.
8. Not relevant to sexual behaviour. Unless you're talking about the plastic in a plastic cock leeching into their bodies.
9. Gays beat each other up more than straight guys get into fights? Um... No. Heteros beat their women up way more, that's why they have all the women's shelters and no/not many gay ones.

1. In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." (^ Villarreal, Daniel (May 12, 2011). "Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?". Queerty. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.)
Gay activist admits gays really do want to recruit children :: Northern Colorado Gazette
There was a pro-homosexual teacher/teen 'Teach Out' held at Tufts University in Boston in March 2004, that outraged concerned citizens. During the Teach Out, state HIV instructors taught teenagers how to engage in queer, deviant, sex acts, and they also taught teachers how to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexuality as normal. ( "Let's End Taxpayer Supported Homosexual Recruitment Programs In Public Schools". Traditional Values Coalition. Archived from the original on 1 November 2005.)
In her WorldNetDaily piece, "GLSEN and the Hitler Youth", Judith Reisman also expressed concern that groups such as GLSEN are cover for recruitment of children, saying "Under color of a 'Safe Schools Movement' battling alleged 'bullying' of so-called 'gay' children (K-12), some see GLSEN as a modern version of the Hitler Youth and as preparing the ground for a larger, sweeping, schoolroom Youth Brigade."

Robert Oscar Lopez: Gay Activists Are Violent, “Recruit Children Into Homosexuality” | Equality Matters
PFOX - Recruited
LiveLeak.com - Homosexuals Admit they Recruit Children!
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/...amas-czar.html
http://www.theonion.com/articles/98-...ring-goal,536/

2. I showered with one for 10 seconds. We found out he was queer, and sent him back to Teaneck, NJ, tarred & feathered. Yeah those pillowxases had a lot of good feathers. Bwa ha ha h aha ha.

3. Not hardly.

4. I'll think about anything I choose to think about. Imposing queer sex upon the public's eyes is unacceptable, and should be illegal. In many places it is.

5. Harm is harm whether to queers or heteros. And what harms the queer, harms his family members also.

6. So what ?

7. No such thing as "homophobe". That's already been explained . Try to keep up.

8. (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)

9. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

[/QUOTE]

1, 6, 8 & 9. Your sources are laughable.
2. Did you at least do a reach-around?
3. Link please.
4. Not in free countries is being gay illegal. Maybe you should move.
5. Affects family members sure, but doesn't harm them. Buy a dictionary.
7. Homophobe is a real word, look it up in your new dictionary.

 

[Mertex]

Aren't you the one that claimed that, since you don't live in Arizona, nothing that happens there makes a difference to you?

That's right, I didn't travel to Arizona to protest it....however, that doesn't mean I can't comment on how stupid that law was and that I'm glad it was struck down.

Weren't you the one that claimed to love the Constitution? Why are you okay with a law that would go against it?

So, you lied?

No, you lied. You claim to love the Constitution but yet you continue to defend bills that tend to shred it.....or the politicians that try to shred it.....

 

[Mertex]

Aren't you the one that claimed that, since you don't live in Arizona, nothing that happens there makes a difference to you?

Careful...she'll lie about you, then call you names, then start sending you private messages until you put her on ignore and then she'll threaten to report you for harassing HER. She'll NEVER make an honest argument...at least that was my experience before I put her on ignore

Sounds like fun.

hunarcy is whining because he kept sending me @mentions....and when I told him to stop, he told me didn't have to....so I put him on ignore, and he can't send me any more mentions or I'll report his ass.....and he whines about it.... And, he is lying...I don't call people names, I just tell them when I think they are posting stupid stuff....like he was.
What a cry-baby he is.

 

[Mertex]

Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?

That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.

It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.

You still don't get it, do you.....? It was going against the Civil Rights Act.....maybe you better go read it again.

 

[Mertex]

1. Queers actively try to recruit children to adopt their sick, perverted lifestyle > HARM.

2. No heterosexual wants to share a shower with a queer. > HARM.

3. No heterosexual football player wants to be grabbed and tackled by any queer > HARM.

4. Few heterosexuals are not disgusted by the sight to 2 guys kissing each on the lips (or worse) > HARM.

5. Queers have spread AIDS. Only 2% of US population is queer, yet they account for 61% of AIDS > HARM. ("Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections." Center for Disease Control)

6. "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual.

7. Relatives of homosexuals are hurt emotionally by the loved ones being queer. > HARM

8. Breast cancer is higher among lesbians and bisexual women than heterosexual women. > HARM

9. The incidence of domestic violence is almost twice as high among queer "men" as it is among heterosexual men. > HARM

This is a significant but still only partial list.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?

For starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.

Secondly, SSM would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.

Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.

Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be OK).

All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy)

Sodomy would be banned.

All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.

Obviously you've never had a bj, no wonder you are so uptight.

 

[protectionist]

Actually I won't care. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

What you really think is I don't protest enough. Bwa ha ha ha ha http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg

Ah the changes we've seen eh General? And now the gays are just like everyone else, but better dressed. Life is just full of surprises eh?

"Gays" just like everyone else ? Who ? Hah ? Wha ?

Kids, this is why you should not do drugs!

 

[protectionist]

'98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.

Doesn't matter what it is. All that matters is the content of the link does what I want it to do. I use links from all perspectives, as long as they make the point. You couldn't figure that out ? http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg

 

[protectionist]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?

For starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.

Secondly, SSM would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.

Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.

Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be OK).

All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy)

Sodomy would be banned.

All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.

Obviously you've never had a bj, no wonder you are so uptight.

Any rationale but the real one, huh ? Par for the course.

 

[protectionist]

let's say, for the sake of argument, that i trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?

for starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.

Secondly, ssm would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.

Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.

Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be ok).

All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of us code 2384 (seditious conspiracy)

sodomy would be banned.

All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.

sieg protectionist!

Sieg protectionist!

You're the one wanting to impose your will on society. No need to remove your swastika tattoo.

 

[WorldWatcher]

'98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.

Doesn't matter what it is. All that matters is the content of the link does what I want it to do. I use links from all perspectives, as long as they make the point. You couldn't figure that out ? http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg

Just so ya know...

"The Onion" isn't "another perspective". The Onion is a satire site poking fun by publishing bogus outlandish fictional stories. When someone posts a link to The Onion and they think it's real "news" - well - they make themselves look like a goober.


>>>>

 

[dblack]

This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.

Doesn't matter what it is. All that matters is the content of the link does what I want it to do. I use links from all perspectives, as long as they make the point. You couldn't figure that out ? http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg

Just so ya know...

"The Onion" isn't "another perspective". The Onion is a satire site poking fun by publishing bogus outlandish fictional stories. When someone posts a link to The Onion and they think it's real "news" - well - they make themselves look like a goober.


>>>>

In this case, they're making fun of YOU, protectionist - the article specifically mocks those who imagine that there's a 'gay agenda' to recruit young people to their ranks.

 

[protectionist]

1. No, they don't. Pedophiles do.
2. Absurd statement. The military allowed gays in, you showered with some.
3. Speculation at best.
4. Just stop thinking about it. So you're against "land of the free"? Not free for gays?
5. Gays only spread aids to other gays, so no harm to heterosexuals. heteros get it as well.
6. That website also had an article titled: Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured.
7. No, only homophobes are affected.
8. Not relevant to sexual behaviour. Unless you're talking about the plastic in a plastic cock leeching into their bodies.
9. Gays beat each other up more than straight guys get into fights? Um... No. Heteros beat their women up way more, that's why they have all the women's shelters and no/not many gay ones.

1. In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." (^ Villarreal, Daniel (May 12, 2011). "Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?". Queerty. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.)
Gay activist admits gays really do want to recruit children :: Northern Colorado Gazette
There was a pro-homosexual teacher/teen 'Teach Out' held at Tufts University in Boston in March 2004, that outraged concerned citizens. During the Teach Out, state HIV instructors taught teenagers how to engage in queer, deviant, sex acts, and they also taught teachers how to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexuality as normal. ( "Let's End Taxpayer Supported Homosexual Recruitment Programs In Public Schools". Traditional Values Coalition. Archived from the original on 1 November 2005.)
In her WorldNetDaily piece, "GLSEN and the Hitler Youth", Judith Reisman also expressed concern that groups such as GLSEN are cover for recruitment of children, saying "Under color of a 'Safe Schools Movement' battling alleged 'bullying' of so-called 'gay' children (K-12), some see GLSEN as a modern version of the Hitler Youth and as preparing the ground for a larger, sweeping, schoolroom Youth Brigade."

Robert Oscar Lopez: Gay Activists Are Violent, “Recruit Children Into Homosexuality” | Equality Matters
PFOX - Recruited
LiveLeak.com - Homosexuals Admit they Recruit Children!
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/...amas-czar.html
http://www.theonion.com/articles/98-...ring-goal,536/

2. I showered with one for 10 seconds. We found out he was queer, and sent him back to Teaneck, NJ, tarred & feathered. Yeah those pillowcases had a lot of good feathers. Bwa ha ha h aha ha.

3. Not hardly.

4. I'll think about anything I choose to think about. Imposing queer sex upon the public's eyes is unacceptable, and should be illegal. In many places it is.

5. Harm is harm whether to queers or heteros. And what harms the queer, harms his family members also.

6. So what ?

7. No such thing as "homophobe". That's already been explained . Try to keep up.

8. (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)

9. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

1, 6, 8 & 9. Your sources are laughable.
2. Did you at least do a reach-around?
3. Link please.
4. Not in free countries is being gay illegal. Maybe you should move.
5. Affects family members sure, but doesn't harm them. Buy a dictionary.
7. Homophobe is a real word, look it up in your new dictionary. [/QUOTE]

1. Invalidation is hardwired into queer lovers.

2. We threw the tar on from 2 feet away. Why ? You want a tar & Feathering ?

3. No link needed. Why do you think there's such a controversy about Michael Sam ?

4. It is illegal in various ways, in a number of states in the USA.



1. In Alabama, state law dictates that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle: (ALA CODE § 16-40A-2-c8)

2. According to Arizona law, not only is there nothing positive about being gay, there is no safe way to have homo sex:
C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex. (AZ 15-716C)

3. Louisiana has a law censoring homosexuality in sex education, but it only applies to “any sexually explicit materials depicting male or female homosexual activity.” Given the law’s emphasis on abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage and the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, non-pictorial discussions of homosexuality could probably be considered violations as well.(RS-17-281)

4. Mississippi law dismisses the possibility that there is any kind of queer sex that is safe, appropriate, or legal:
(1) Abstinence education shall be the state standard for any sex-related education taught in the public schools. For purposes of this section, abstinence education includes any type of instruction or program which, at an appropriate age: [...]
(e) Teaches the current state law related to sexual conduct, including forcible rape, statutory rape, paternity establishment, child support and homosexual activity; and
(f) Teaches that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the only appropriate setting for sexual intercourse. (37-13-171)

5. North Carolina law implies that queer sex is inherently unhealthy: e. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage is the best lifelong means of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. (115C-81)

6. Oklahoma’s law focuses specifically on preventing the transmission of the “AIDS virus” (HIV), claiming that “homosexual activity” is among the causes primarily responsible for contact with it:
D. AIDS prevention education shall specifically teach students that:
1. engaging in homosexual activity, promiscuous sexual activity, intravenous drug use or contact with contaminated blood products is now known to be primarily responsible for contact with the AIDS virus;
2. avoiding the activities specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection is the only method of preventing the spread of the virus; (§70 11 103.3)

7. In South Carolina:
(5) The program of instruction provided for in this section may not include a discussion of alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships except in the context of instruction concerning sexually transmitted diseases. (South Carolina Code 59-32-30. Local school boards to implement comprehensive health education program; guidelines and restrictions).

8. Even though it was Texas’s sodomy law that the Supreme Court struck down over 10 years ago, that law is still part of the state’s sex education policy:
(b) The materials in the education programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age must:
(1) emphasize sexual abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage as the expected standard in terms of public health and the most effective ways to prevent HIV infection, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies; and
(2) state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code.

The law also asserts that “sexual activity before marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical consequences,” and given that same-sex marriage is banned in Texas, this implies that all gay sex is harmful in such fashion.

9. Utah law prohibits “the advocacy of homosexuality.” (53A-13-101-AII)

10. In Florida, lawmakers this year rejected a statewide domestic partnership registry that would have granted health care visitation, among other rights, to same-sex couples. Homo members of the National Guard recently were prohibited from signing up for federal benefits at state buildings. And a Broward County Republican Party leader almost lost her job for voicing support for homosexual marriage. Florida's state constitution continues to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and prohibits gays from adopting children.
Florida is also one of nine states that refused to register same-sex spouses of National Guard personnel for health and death benefits, and refuses to issue them identification cards to access military bases.

5. "Affects" family members. How ? They get a rash ? Don't talk stupid.

7. Dictionary ? HA HA.. My dictionary was written in 1958. It has no word "homophobe" in it. And I don't need a dictionary written by young people, with a lot screwball ideas. Ah yes, the newest (and best) requirement for 2014 college freshmen >> a 1958 dictionary!

 

[protectionist]

Doesn't matter what it is. All that matters is the content of the link does what I want it to do. I use links from all perspectives, as long as they make the point. You couldn't figure that out ? http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg

Just so ya know...

"The Onion" isn't "another perspective". The Onion is a satire site poking fun by publishing bogus outlandish fictional stories. When someone posts a link to The Onion and they think it's real "news" - well - they make themselves look like a goober.


>>>>

In this case, they're making fun of YOU, protectionist - the article specifically mocks those who imagine that there's a 'gay agenda' to recruit young people to their ranks.

I didn't read it all that carefully. Doesn't matter. I did see valid points about recruitment. Doesn't really matter who it's from, or what their motives are. All in all, my post has lots of info and links about recruitment. That's what DOES matter. I'm the one who's laughing at their failed attempt to say there's no recruitment, which I disproved.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9797
http://www.queerty.com/can-we-pleas...-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201310080005
http://pfox.org/recruited.html
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/...amas-czar.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.

It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.

It was not.
That could have easily been done.

Feel free to explain, in detail, the differences between SB 1062 and the RFRA.

Can't find any?

I guess that makes me right.

 

[Gadawg73]

It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.

It was not.
That could have easily been done.

Feel free to explain, in detail, the differences between SB 1062 and the RFRA.

Can't find any?

I guess that makes me right.

I agree.
You are a legend in your own mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's right, I didn't travel to Arizona to protest it....however, that doesn't mean I can't comment on how stupid that law was and that I'm glad it was struck down.

Weren't you the one that claimed to love the Constitution? Why are you okay with a law that would go against it?

So, you lied?

No, you lied. You claim to love the Constitution but yet you continue to defend bills that tend to shred it.....or the politicians that try to shred it.....

You are the one that defending bills that give the government power to ignore people's rights. I would think that is what shreds the constitution, not the ones that defend them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.

It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.

You still don't get it, do you.....? It was going against the Civil Rights Act.....maybe you better go read it again.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act which passed Congress on a voted of 533-3 and was signed by Clinton.

(a) Findings The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

(a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sounds terrible, doesn't it. Funny that the Civil Rights lawyers didn't think it violated the CRA.

By the way, next time that idiot Jones mentions Smith, tell him to read this post.

 

[hunarcy]

So, you lied?

No, you lied. You claim to love the Constitution but yet you continue to defend bills that tend to shred it.....or the politicians that try to shred it.....

You are the one that defending bills that give the government power to ignore people's rights. I would think that is what shreds the constitution, not the ones that defend them.

Told you so! LOL!

 

[Mertex]

So, you lied?

No, you lied. You claim to love the Constitution but yet you continue to defend bills that tend to shred it.....or the politicians that try to shred it.....

You are the one that defending bills that give the government power to ignore people's rights. I would think that is what shreds the constitution, not the ones that defend them.

Just because you don't understand the Constitution, nor the bill doesn't mean that your interpretation is right....you need to have someone explain it to you....

The Civil Rights Act is protected by the 14th Amendment, and that is why the bill was not passed by Brewer....but obviously you don't even understand that - why don't you go after Brewer if you think she's the one that is ignoring people's rights? Because you are wrong, maybe someday you'll understand and you won't be making such absurd comments.....maybe....but I seriously doubt it.