Indiana is for Bigots - video and Pence running for cover

[PaintMyHouse]

Did the Jews not do that? The Christians? Have you no historical perspective at all?

Oh, again you bring up ANCIENT history and try to compare that to today's day and age. Lol. Silly boy.

Maybe you should learn Islam, where an insult of a thousand years ago was fucking yesterday. Oh that's right, you have no clue about Islam because you never studied it, like the rest of the dumbshits here.

And somehow, by magic I guess, a religion of warriors is supposed to be better than a religion of peacemakers, who spent five hundred years chopping off the heads of Muslims, Jews, and other unbelievers, when that is they weren't slaughtering each other. History matters, learn to apply it.

Muslims slaughtered Jews by the thousands. Muhammad himself wiped out several towns full of Jews. Muslims waged war on Christians for 500 years before the started to defend themselves.

Talk about someone who knows nothing of history.

Not that I will bother with any of your nonsense, but, the Christians were pussies then, which they're supposed to be. At least the Jews and the Muslims can kill their enemies, with God's blessing and help no less.

Oh, and yesterday, the Jews were pussies.

Yep, those who died in the camps, like sheep, were. The ones who survived might have been even worse, they were Nazi cocksuckers.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I'll see you all later! It's late. I'm tired.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not quite sure how baking a cake "caters" to anyone's lifestyle. Its just a cake.

Its agreeing to make a cake for something you don't believe in which is a homosexual "marriage".

What someone who bakes cakes for a living believes in is getting paid, on time, for said cake.

Exactly.

As a professional photographer I have two rules.

1. It must be legal.

2. I must be paid.

That's it.

I have never been asked to work a gay wedding but I would very happily do so if I was asked.

You are my kind of capitalist. All you see is the color green. In this case, but not every case, that is all that matters.

Yes in the case of business, money is what matters.

I'm not christian but I've worked christian weddings. It had nothing to do with me. I'm the hired help. I wasn't a part of the wedding nor was I attending the wedding. No one expected me to be christian to be able to photograph their wedding.

The bride and groom aren't looking for the people they hire to have any say or input to the wedding. Nor do the bride and groom care whether I'm christian or worship the lint it my belly button. All they cared about was a photographer who could document the event and produce good photos. That's all they're looking for in a photographer. Same with a baker. All they want is to buy a cake. Just as with the flowers. All they want is flowers for their wedding.

Conducting business isn't a religion and everyone knows it.

That's you. For other people making money isn't the only thing that matters.

 

[bripat9643]

Faggots should stop suing people who refuse to cater to their "lifestyle" and laws like this wouldn't be needed but of course the people in the right are blamed as usual. Indiana will survive and faggots will get over it.

As long as you and others on the right continue to discriminate against gay Americans, they'll have no other recourse than to seek relief in court; it's up to you.

They have the recourse of just minding their own fucking business.

 

[bripat9643]

Let the queers get over it.

That's right, wear that bigotry on your sleeve like a good chap.

It's not bigotry. It's well deserved contempt.

Definitely bigotry.

What isn't bigotry? Why isn't contempt towards a Christian deemed bigotry? Hmm?

A bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)."

Whether or not contempt is involved is irrelevant. I can have contempt of court because of a specific idea that I abhore, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the judge. I can have contempt for a religion or a religious view, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the religious PERSON. One can disagree with the religion and like the religious. My family is a classic example. I'm an atheist. Most of the rest of my family is devout Catholic. I intensely dislike Catholicism, but love my family. You can intensely dislike homosexuality for whatever reason. You can even dislike the homosexual. But you have no right to discriminate against them because they are homosexuals. The hatred needs to stop. They aren't hurting anyone by being gay any more than heterosexuals are hurting anyone by being heterosexual. Their sexual preference is no one else's business but their own.

So if you feel contempt for all Nazis, does that make you a bigot?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did the Jews not do that? The Christians? Have you no historical perspective at all?

Oh, again you bring up ANCIENT history and try to compare that to today's day and age. Lol. Silly boy.

Maybe you should learn Islam, where an insult of a thousand years ago was fucking yesterday. Oh that's right, you have no clue about Islam because you never studied it, like the rest of the dumbshits here.

And somehow, by magic I guess, a religion of warriors is supposed to be better than a religion of peacemakers, who spent five hundred years chopping off the heads of Muslims, Jews, and other unbelievers, when that is they weren't slaughtering each other. History matters, learn to apply it.

Muslims slaughtered Jews by the thousands. Muhammad himself wiped out several towns full of Jews. Muslims waged war on Christians for 500 years before the started to defend themselves.

Talk about someone who knows nothing of history.

Not that I will bother with any of your nonsense, but, the Christians were pussies then, which they're supposed to be. At least the Jews and the Muslims can kill their enemies, with God's blessing and help no less.

I marvel at the way you switch from saying the Moslem where victims to saying their victims were pussies who got what they deserve. I think someone inserted a blade into your cranium and scrambled your brains.

Dumbass, Christians are supposed to be peacemakers, which they aren't. Jews, and especially Muslims, are warriors. When the Christians are knee deep in Muslim blood, that goes against the faith and the teachings of Jesus. When the Muslims are knee deep in Christian blood, that is true to their Holy Book. Christians are supposed to die like pussies (and the Jews in the camps) however Muslims are not.

 

[eots]

Well, I'll see you all later! It's late. I'm tired.

goodnight Sam...

 

[bripat9643]

It is if you are selling it from a business open to the public. Do you understand what words mean?

That isn't actually true. You have some severe misunderstandings about how the law works.

By what basis do people lose their constitutional rights when they sell to the public?

The basis is Capitalism is regulated here, Now you know.

It's regulated in violation of the Constitution.

Utter B.S. The regulation of economic activity is clearly acknowledged in the Constitution.

Wow.

It's embarrassing that we have such ill informed people in our nation. Where was that person when they were supposed to be learning the constitution with the rest of US History? Yet they're the same people who wrap themselves in the flag and declare that they love our nation and what we stand for.

But then people like that only believe and follow the parts of our constitution they like, such as the second amendment.

They have no idea what the commerce clause is. I know I've posted it several times but I'll do it again. Some people need things repeated before it actually sinks in. It's one simple and very intelligent sentence in the constitution. The founders of America knew that unregulated capitalism only leads to monopolies and oligarchies.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

You think you understand the Constitution, but like all libturds you're actually an ignoramus on the subject.:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

By what basis do people lose their constitutional rights when they sell to the public?

The basis is Capitalism is regulated here, Now you know.

It's regulated in violation of the Constitution.

Utter B.S. The regulation of economic activity is clearly acknowledged in the Constitution.

Wow.

It's embarrassing that we have such ill informed people in our nation. Where was that person when they were supposed to be learning the constitution with the rest of US History? Yet they're the same people who wrap themselves in the flag and declare that they love our nation and what we stand for.

But then people like that only believe and follow the parts of our constitution they like, such as the second amendment.

They have no idea what the commerce clause is. I know I've posted it several times but I'll do it again. Some people need things repeated before it actually sinks in. It's one simple and very intelligent sentence in the constitution. The founders of America knew that unregulated capitalism only leads to monopolies and oligarchies.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Hey genius, it would help to have the legal interpretation of the Commerce Clause in hand before lecturing others on Constitutional law.

"The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade. "

102RP6


Now please, have a seat.

It would help if you understood that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, before lecturing others on the meaning of the Commerce Clause with regard to public accommodations:

'Held:

1. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause as applied to a place of public accommodation serving interstate travelers. Civil Right Cases,109 U.S. 3, distinguished. Pp. 249-262.

(a) The interstate movement of persons is "commerce" which concerns more than one State. Pp. 255-256.

(b) The protection of interstate commerce is within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause whether or not the transportation of persons between States is "commercial." P. 256.

(c) Congress' action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress was also legislating against what it considered to be moral wrongs. P. 257.

(d) Congress had power to enact appropriate legislation with regard to a place of public accommodation such as appellant's motel even if it is assumed to be of a purely "local" character, as Congress' power over interstate commerce extends to the regulation of local incidents thereof which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce. P. 258.

(2) The prohibition in Title II of racial discrimination in public accommodations affecting commerce does not violate the Fifth [p242]Amendment as being a deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law. Pp. 258-261.

(3) Such prohibition does not violate he Thirteenth Amendment as being "involuntary servitude." P. 261.'

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States LII Legal Information Institute

1. 
   
   

 

[bripat9643]

It's not bigotry. It's well deserved contempt.

Definitely bigotry.

What isn't bigotry? Why isn't contempt towards a Christian deemed bigotry? Hmm?

A bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)."

Whether or not contempt is involved is irrelevant. I can have contempt of court because of a specific idea that I abhore, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the judge. I can have contempt for a religion or a religious view, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the religious PERSON. One can disagree with the religion and like the religious. My family is a classic example. I'm an atheist. Most of the rest of my family is devout Catholic. I intensely dislike Catholicism, but love my family. You can intensely dislike homosexuality for whatever reason. You can even dislike the homosexual. But you have no right to discriminate against them because they are homosexuals. The hatred needs to stop. They aren't hurting anyone by being gay any more than heterosexuals are hurting anyone by being heterosexual. Their sexual preference is no one else's business but their own.

I have to disagree. I think that a business owner should be able to choose who she or he does business with. There could be many different reasons why a person would choose not to do business with another. The government has no right to involve itself in those choices.

Do you believe that a business owner should have the right to refuse to do business with a black man because of the color of his skin? Or with a Jew because your religious beliefs are anti-Semitic? Or with a Christian because he despises Christians? This law does nothing to protect anyone. On the contrary, it only further polarizes society.

The fact of the matter is that under the 14th amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment prevents the government from discriminating. It doesn't prevent citizens or private businesses from discriminating. All you proved is that you're an ignoramus who doesn't know jack about the Consititution.

 

[orogenicman]

Their sexual preference is no one else's business but their own.

My religious beliefs as a theoretical business owner is none of your business but my own. Ring a bell?

When your religious beliefs impacts my ability to do business, it is my business.

The hatred needs to stop.

Tell me about it. ...he who is without sin...

There is no such thing as sin, just people behaving badly.

But you have no right to discriminate against them because they are homosexuals.

You have no right to impose on the beliefs of others. What if I suddenly tried to force my lifestyle on you?

Irrelevant. Being gay isn't a lifestyle. Moreover, they aren't forcing anything on anyone. If a gay person wants to buy a cake from someone who hates gays, how is buying that cake from that person forcing anything on them other than a wad of money?

What if I sued you in the court of law to make you adhere to it? What if the court agreed, fined you, destroyed you and your livelihood, all because you wouldn't bend to my lifestyle?

Again, irrelevant because it simply doesn't apply.

Actually, the government does have a such a right under the 14th amendment when the beliefs of others infringe on the human rights of others: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I intensely dislike Catholicism, but love my family. You can intensely dislike homosexuality for whatever reason. You can even dislike the homosexual.

I don't even dislike or hate homosexuals, I support their right to be married under the law even though I find such an activity to turn my stomach, repeatedly.

If it turns your stomach, I question your claim not to dislike them.

But what I don't like is members of their community singling out people of faith for
the pure gain of having them brought before a judge and made to condone their lifestyle.

Again, being gay is not a lifestyle. And if people of faith are being brought before a court for discriminating against gays, then that's what they deserve. You may feel you have a right to be an asshole, but the government doesn't have an obligation to protect you when you are.

Discrimination is inherently wrong, and by all rights the proprietor should serve them under existing law, but there must be a line drawn when such a law would force them to go against their long held beliefs.

This is the exact same argument used by racists in the south to insist on segregation. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I can have contempt for a religion or a religious view, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the religious PERSON.

Isn't that a contradiction?

Why? I am under no obligation to respect any religious belief. And technically I am under no obligation to respect any religious person. But that is not who I am. I despise religion in general, and certain religions specifically. But I have no qualms with most of the people who hold to those faiths. Most of them are kind, decent people.

 

[bripat9643]

The basis is Capitalism is regulated here, Now you know.

It's regulated in violation of the Constitution.

Utter B.S. The regulation of economic activity is clearly acknowledged in the Constitution.

Wow.

It's embarrassing that we have such ill informed people in our nation. Where was that person when they were supposed to be learning the constitution with the rest of US History? Yet they're the same people who wrap themselves in the flag and declare that they love our nation and what we stand for.

But then people like that only believe and follow the parts of our constitution they like, such as the second amendment.

They have no idea what the commerce clause is. I know I've posted it several times but I'll do it again. Some people need things repeated before it actually sinks in. It's one simple and very intelligent sentence in the constitution. The founders of America knew that unregulated capitalism only leads to monopolies and oligarchies.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Hey genius, it would help to have the legal interpretation of the Commerce Clause in hand before lecturing others on Constitutional law.

"The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade. "

102RP6


Now please, have a seat.

It would help if you understood that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, before lecturing others on the meaning of the Commerce Clause with regard to public accommodations:

I've proven this wrong so many times that I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed to repeat it.

Most Supreme Court decisions are just total bullshit conceived by government toadies to increase the power of the state and erode the freedoms of the people. They have little connection with the actual document or logic and the facts.

 

[orogenicman]

That's right, wear that bigotry on your sleeve like a good chap.

It's not bigotry. It's well deserved contempt.

Definitely bigotry.

What isn't bigotry? Why isn't contempt towards a Christian deemed bigotry? Hmm?

A bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)."

Whether or not contempt is involved is irrelevant. I can have contempt of court because of a specific idea that I abhore, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the judge. I can have contempt for a religion or a religious view, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the religious PERSON. One can disagree with the religion and like the religious. My family is a classic example. I'm an atheist. Most of the rest of my family is devout Catholic. I intensely dislike Catholicism, but love my family. You can intensely dislike homosexuality for whatever reason. You can even dislike the homosexual. But you have no right to discriminate against them because they are homosexuals. The hatred needs to stop. They aren't hurting anyone by being gay any more than heterosexuals are hurting anyone by being heterosexual. Their sexual preference is no one else's business but their own.

So if you feel contempt for all Nazis, does that make you a bigot?

Wow, Godwin's law. Haven't seen that one in a while.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, about the thread topic, I would say that the government should not be able to FORCE a business to do business with people they do not wish to do business with. While I support equal rights for gay people, I don't want the government being able to involve itself in personal or business matters of the people.

Those people will just lose business and money. That is how capitalism works. Why would you want to do business with a person like that anyways?

You're entitled to your opinion, provided you understand it's ignorant and wrong.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause – business owners are not being 'forced' to do anything, their rights are not being 'violated,' nor their religious liberty 'infringed.'

And the notion that 'market forces' will address the problem of business owners discriminating against gay Americans is naïve and foolish.

Pure horseshit. The commerce clause does not authorize public accommodation laws. That's a fiction invented by some servile toadies on the court.

 

[bripat9643]

look....if that's what Indiana wants ....who are we to say no?

I do respect their decision.

Because it violates the constitution.

The 14th amendment clearly says that everyone is to be treated equally under the law.

The government of Indiana has written and passed a law that makes it legal to not treat everyone equally under the law.

The federal Constitution trumps state laws. If a state law violates the constitution that law isn't implemented.

I'm sure that people are right now taking steps to challenge that law in court. No court in the nation is going to allow a state to violate the Constitution.

I just want to know how a gay person is going to be able to eat food if the only store in their small town won't sell food to them because they're gay?

Or how is a gay person going to get the proper medical treatment if the only doctor in their small town refuses to treat them because they're gay?

Well, you make a good point, especially with the doctor. I don't like it though. The government telling you that you don't have the choice when it is your own business? Besides, gay is not a religion, nor is it a race or gender.

His point is bullshit. If I'm a Jewish doctor and you're a Nazi and I don't want to treat you for a mortal injury, then you are going to die. Tough shit for you.

 

[eots]

My nigga bossy shits her own damn cakes

 

[orogenicman]

Definitely bigotry.

What isn't bigotry? Why isn't contempt towards a Christian deemed bigotry? Hmm?

A bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)."

Whether or not contempt is involved is irrelevant. I can have contempt of court because of a specific idea that I abhore, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the judge. I can have contempt for a religion or a religious view, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the religious PERSON. One can disagree with the religion and like the religious. My family is a classic example. I'm an atheist. Most of the rest of my family is devout Catholic. I intensely dislike Catholicism, but love my family. You can intensely dislike homosexuality for whatever reason. You can even dislike the homosexual. But you have no right to discriminate against them because they are homosexuals. The hatred needs to stop. They aren't hurting anyone by being gay any more than heterosexuals are hurting anyone by being heterosexual. Their sexual preference is no one else's business but their own.

I have to disagree. I think that a business owner should be able to choose who she or he does business with. There could be many different reasons why a person would choose not to do business with another. The government has no right to involve itself in those choices.

Do you believe that a business owner should have the right to refuse to do business with a black man because of the color of his skin? Or with a Jew because your religious beliefs are anti-Semitic? Or with a Christian because he despises Christians? This law does nothing to protect anyone. On the contrary, it only further polarizes society.

The fact of the matter is that under the 14th amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment prevents the government from discriminating. It doesn't prevent citizens or private businesses from discriminating. All you proved is that you're an ignoramus who doesn't know jack about the Consititution.

Read it again in relation to this law Pence signed: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[bripat9643]

It's not bigotry. It's well deserved contempt.

Definitely bigotry.

What isn't bigotry? Why isn't contempt towards a Christian deemed bigotry? Hmm?

A bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)."

Whether or not contempt is involved is irrelevant. I can have contempt of court because of a specific idea that I abhore, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the judge. I can have contempt for a religion or a religious view, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the religious PERSON. One can disagree with the religion and like the religious. My family is a classic example. I'm an atheist. Most of the rest of my family is devout Catholic. I intensely dislike Catholicism, but love my family. You can intensely dislike homosexuality for whatever reason. You can even dislike the homosexual. But you have no right to discriminate against them because they are homosexuals. The hatred needs to stop. They aren't hurting anyone by being gay any more than heterosexuals are hurting anyone by being heterosexual. Their sexual preference is no one else's business but their own.

So if you feel contempt for all Nazis, does that make you a bigot?

Wow, Godwin's law. Haven't seen that one in a while.

As I've pointed out many times before, Godwin's law is not a law. It's just a commie propaganda technique invented to shut up their critics.

 

[bripat9643]

What isn't bigotry? Why isn't contempt towards a Christian deemed bigotry? Hmm?

A bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)."

Whether or not contempt is involved is irrelevant. I can have contempt of court because of a specific idea that I abhore, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the judge. I can have contempt for a religion or a religious view, but that doesn't mean that I dislike the religious PERSON. One can disagree with the religion and like the religious. My family is a classic example. I'm an atheist. Most of the rest of my family is devout Catholic. I intensely dislike Catholicism, but love my family. You can intensely dislike homosexuality for whatever reason. You can even dislike the homosexual. But you have no right to discriminate against them because they are homosexuals. The hatred needs to stop. They aren't hurting anyone by being gay any more than heterosexuals are hurting anyone by being heterosexual. Their sexual preference is no one else's business but their own.

I have to disagree. I think that a business owner should be able to choose who she or he does business with. There could be many different reasons why a person would choose not to do business with another. The government has no right to involve itself in those choices.

Do you believe that a business owner should have the right to refuse to do business with a black man because of the color of his skin? Or with a Jew because your religious beliefs are anti-Semitic? Or with a Christian because he despises Christians? This law does nothing to protect anyone. On the contrary, it only further polarizes society.

The fact of the matter is that under the 14th amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment prevents the government from discriminating. It doesn't prevent citizens or private businesses from discriminating. All you proved is that you're an ignoramus who doesn't know jack about the Consititution.

Read it again in relation to this law Pence signed: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No one has a right to be served, so the 14th Amendment changes nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, again you bring up ANCIENT history and try to compare that to today's day and age. Lol. Silly boy.

Maybe you should learn Islam, where an insult of a thousand years ago was fucking yesterday. Oh that's right, you have no clue about Islam because you never studied it, like the rest of the dumbshits here.

And somehow, by magic I guess, a religion of warriors is supposed to be better than a religion of peacemakers, who spent five hundred years chopping off the heads of Muslims, Jews, and other unbelievers, when that is they weren't slaughtering each other. History matters, learn to apply it.

No, THAT is not relevant to today. That is absurd.

You are utterly wrong. You cannot begin to understand Islam until you understand the world as they see it, an eternal struggle (Jihad), to convert man to the Will (Submission), of God (Allah). Those fighting for ISIS expect to die, in vast numbers, it's required for them to win. 19 out of 20 will die, but God will win in the end.

You don't know your enemy therefore, you cannot win. And while I know your enemy, I am more their enemy than you will ever be. You are the unconverted, I am the devil himself.

You have admitted that you are their allie and you want to help them wipe out the Jews.

Go away you stupid child. You understand nothing at all.

The truth stings, doesn't it?