Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You lost this debate a long time ago, and nobody has had the heart to tell you.
Interestingly, Indianapolis has its own anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays.
http://www.hallrender.com/library/articles/59/HLA_Indiana_swl.pdf
State law is paramount
What kind of a dumbbell post is this ? Of course it CAN'T be said the same about blacks, women, the Irish, American Indians. Those groups ARE equal in rights to everyone else because they are not ABnormal sex perverts, or abnormal in someway that endangers the public, as queers are.They should NOT be treated equally. They are not equal. worse yet, they are a threat to normal people, and thus should be discriminated against in various ways.It isn't about the homosexuals it Is about the Christians. Destroying the church is the utmost important thing for progressivesIf I were hosting a seminar on the health risks of homosexual conduct, and I walked into a print shop to have them print up some booklets to hand out at the seminar, and the printer happened to be gay and told me he did not want to print what he considered to be "anti-gay propaganda," I would simply thank him for his time and go find another printer. I would never dream of suing him or otherwise trying to get him in trouble. I would respect his beliefs and feelings, even though I found them absurd.
Why can't gays show the same tolerance and respect for religious vendors who find gay marriage offensive?
This is *not* the same thing as refusing to serve someone a meal at your restaurant or refusing a couple a hotel room at your hotel. Food, lodging, auto repair, home repair, things like that, can be viewed as "basic" needs that any vendor should be willing to provide, regardless of race, lifestyle, creed, etc.
You give yourself far too much credit. It's about being treated equally. Christians are protected by anti discrimination laws in Public Accommodation at a Federal level...unlike gays that are protected at a state or local level...states rights guy.
The same thing was said about blacks, women, the Irish, American Indians....
protectionist is what the worst of America looks like.
And YOU CandyCorn are the worst of what America looks like. Just like the fools in the protests we see on TV holding signs that say > "Religious freedom doesn't mean OK to discriminate" The sign is deceitful. The protestors aren't against "discrimination". They're perfectly willing to discriminate against those who wish to choose whom they do business with, and how. They're hypocritically perfectly willing to discriminate against those who wish to be free from homosexual behaviors and influences, which is proper and normal.
They know there will always be discriminaitons going on, in favor of some, and against others. They just are pushing to keep the discriminations to be in their favor, and everybody else be damned.
So editorials are being written to support the bigotry of the GLBTs. HA HA HA. How many ? One ? (out of thousands of publications) Even if there were more on the side of the queers, all that would mean is they have a bigger mouth, like all the nitwit protestors running around protesting discrimination against them, while advocating discrimination against others. What a fiasco.You lost this debate a long time ago, and nobody has had the heart to tell you.
Yeah I lost the debate society is rushing to your side of the issue writing editorials supporting you and business leaders are speaking out in support of your position>NOT
why ?
cause you have wing nut tendencies....
Fuck Salesforce.com. Fuck fascists who oppose this legislation. It will do nothing but prevent the abuses that w've seen in other parts of the country.
NO. The state law does NOT take away the protection from "discrimination". What it does is decide (at least to the extent of contesting in court) WHO will be protected - and it decides that Christians will be protected from discrimination rather than queers, as it should be. In fact, I'd say queers ought to be happy that they aren't all being thrown into mental institutions.Interestingly, Indianapolis has its own anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays.
http://www.hallrender.com/library/articles/59/HLA_Indiana_swl.pdf
State law is paramount
Ah, so you admit that the local law, in Indianapolis, to protect gays against discrimination, is trumped by the state law,
and thus the state law takes away the protection from discrimination.
Given that, why are people like you and so many others running around saying that this law does not enable discrimination against gays?
1. You are creating an "issue" that does not exist. The "problem" you cite may never happen.Does the Indiana law allow, for example, a Catholic hospital the right
1. to refuse to treat homosexuals?
2. to refuse to hire homosexuals?
If not, why not?
Somewhere (right here), you know I'm right, and you are pretending you don't. Ho hum.What kind of a dumbbell post is this ? Of course it CAN'T be said the same about blacks, women, the Irish, American Indians. Those groups ARE equal in rights to everyone else because they are not ABnormal sex perverts, or abnormal in someway that endangers the public, as queers are.They should NOT be treated equally. They are not equal. worse yet, they are a threat to normal people, and thus should be discriminated against in various ways.It isn't about the homosexuals it Is about the Christians. Destroying the church is the utmost important thing for progressives
You give yourself far too much credit. It's about being treated equally. Christians are protected by anti discrimination laws in Public Accommodation at a Federal level...unlike gays that are protected at a state or local level...states rights guy.
The same thing was said about blacks, women, the Irish, American Indians....
protectionist is what the worst of America looks like.
And YOU CandyCorn are the worst of what America looks like. Just like the fools in the protests we see on TV holding signs that say > "Religious freedom doesn't mean OK to discriminate" The sign is deceitful. The protestors aren't against "discrimination". They're perfectly willing to discriminate against those who wish to choose whom they do business with, and how. They're hypocritically perfectly willing to discriminate against those who wish to be free from homosexual behaviors and influences, which is proper and normal.
They know there will always be discriminaitons going on, in favor of some, and against others. They just are pushing to keep the discriminations to be in their favor, and everybody else be damned.
Somewhere you're depriving a village of it's idiot.
So you're not a bigot by supporting discrimination against the Christians ?Fuck Salesforce.com. Fuck fascists who oppose this legislation. It will do nothing but prevent the abuses that w've seen in other parts of the country.
Religious liberty was also used to justify "NO BLACKS". The bigots lost that one, too.
Proving again you know nothing about the law and as normal showing how ignorant you are. Dont you fucking idiots ever get sick of being stupid? This law does not discriminate at all unless you think having your day ion court to defend your first amendment is discrimination? Try to grow a brain you ignorant tool.This is not discrimination against Christians, this is discrimination BY Christians. Such behaviour makes me question how they can be Christians at all or whether they are slandering Christianity to discriminate against gays.
And on the other side of it, you're OK with discriminating against Christians, just to suit the gays ?This is not discrimination against Christians, this is discrimination BY Christians. Such behaviour makes me question how they can be Christians at all or whether they are slandering Christianity to discriminate against gays.
I prefer a no Red neck sign ....or maybe no dogs or Christian fundamentalistsSo what's the matter with having a "No Gays" sign ? Looks appropriate to me (under some circumstances), except for the word "Gay", which is a misnomer. "Queer" is a more fitting and correct description, and entirely accepted by homosexuals. "Homos" is correct as well (simply a contraction of the word homosexual).
Republicans swept the last election by a landslide, and will do so again, and they aren't gay ass-kissers, and you know it. These fools will be out, and better people will be in. This temporary victory for gays won't last long. And how anybody can rally to the side of sex perverts, while simultaneously sweeping Jesus Christ aside, is incomprehensible. I can see it only as a combination of extreme lunacy and utter stupidity.I prefer a no Red neck sign ....or maybe no dogs or Christian fundamentalistsSo what's the matter with having a "No Gays" sign ? Looks appropriate to me (under some circumstances), except for the word "Gay", which is a misnomer. "Queer" is a more fitting and correct description, and entirely accepted by homosexuals. "Homos" is correct as well (simply a contraction of the word homosexual).
That's all you can do. Throw empty ad hominem insults. You have no basis in this discussion. You lost this debate a long time ago, and nobody has had the heart to tell you.Only you got your head on right ...I mean all the way to Right wing nut...The Indianapolis Star is full of crap. NO there CANNOT be coexistence of RFRA and queers. What the queers want is basically a repeal of RFRA where the right to discriminate against queers would be taken away. That is preposterous. I can't say it enough. The queers want to have THEIR WAY 100%, and everyone else be damned.
How many queers are on the Indianapolis Star's editorial board ?
Republicans swept the last election by a landslide, and will do so again, and they aren't gay ass-kissers, and you know it. These fools will be out, and better people will be in. This temporary victory for gays won't last long. And how anybody can rally to the side of sex perverts, while simultaneously sweeping Jesus Christ aside, is incomprehensible. I can see it only as a combination of extreme lunacy and utter stupidity.I prefer a no Red neck sign ....or maybe no dogs or Christian fundamentalistsSo what's the matter with having a "No Gays" sign ? Looks appropriate to me (under some circumstances), except for the word "Gay", which is a misnomer. "Queer" is a more fitting and correct description, and entirely accepted by homosexuals. "Homos" is correct as well (simply a contraction of the word homosexual).
2. How does it help to have cab drivers who won't pick up blind people with a dog, or someone with an alcoholic beverage bottle, because it's against their culture ?
That's a lie. The "people" weren't involved at all. Big money interests were involved by a few. You lefties believe what you want and it becomes fact to you.Indiana is a Republican state. How'd that work out for getting this anti-gay law passed? The People beat it down with ease.
Now, what's your next plan to thwart the will of the People on gay rights?
