Indiana is for Bigots - video and Pence running for cover

[bripat9643]

Again, you are talking about forcing people to conform to your views via the law. I'm sorry, but that is just not justifiable IMO. Forcing people to do things with threats is no way to change hearts and minds, that's for sure. It creates animosity and resentment.

You could be right. What do you think is the purpose of laws? You know you can't legislate beliefs or desires. All you can do is legislate behavior, and some won't like it no matter what the law is. Other than to define acceptable behavior, why do you think we have laws?

If you want to be an arse, there should not be laws against it. That is just silly, IMO. Like I said, capitalism would sort this out. Those businesses who refuse to do business with a person because of such silly reasons are not going to be doing very well. The business down the road that does not discriminate is the one that will get the most business. Of course, that's my opinion, but you cannot legislate morality. And like I said, just how many businesses do you think would practice such AWFUL business sense? Not too many, I think.

You mean like the cotton farmers sorted out who would own slaves?

"YellowDogDemocrat" must be a euphemism meaning "certified idiot."

That's cute. Have you learned any big words yet?

Here's one: sanctimonious. Here's another: pretentious.

 

[BlackSand]

IMO, that person has no business being in the medical field. Doctors should not discriminate. Their job is to heal people. Not to judge their lifestyle.

Well ... Your opinion and 75 cents may get you a cup of coffee somewhere ... But, in reference to my comment I specifically posted "for any assortment of reasons" which in no way is limited to your idea of discrimination nor any other qualifiers you may feel justified in adding.

Furthermore ... Your desire to judge someone based on your definition of their duties and preferences ... Is no different than what you seem to be accusing them of.
Feel free to inform us as to what your job description is that allows your judgment to stand or be considered any differently.

.

 

[ChrisL]

I am all FOR these businesses hanging out signs too, that they reserve the right to deny business to people based upon . . . whatever silly reason. Then, us more intelligent and open-minded people would choose to NOT do business with these people.

You agree they should be forced to hang out a sign like Jewish businesses were forced to hang out a sign in Nazi Germany?

Did I say forced? NO, I didn't. And as usual, your comparisons are absolutely stupid.

If you want to force businesses to put such a sign on their window, then the comparison is exact.

No it isn't, and I never said I wanted to force anyone to do anything. You really have a reading comprehension problem. How old are you anyway? 12?

 

[AmericanFirst]

No. Being MORAL means understanding, accepting and acting according to the basic tenants of RIGHT and WRONG, nothing more.

In your example, unless the child is yours, you have no responsibility for it. If the parents aren't there, then anything the child has on them is fair game.

Yep, you're a total loon like Bripat, and nothing like moral. Is that some Ayn Rand shit, it's certainly nothing like the morality of the people who founded this nation, making you an American in name only.

Christians founded this nation on Christian principles.

You're confusing the pilgrims with the founders of the United States of America.

The pilgrims did create that theocratic colony of England. The church and king ruled the colonies. These are also the people who burned people, mostly women, at the stake for being a witch. They also put people in stocks in the town square and other very horrible things.

That went on for around 150 years.

Then in the 1770s, the liberals had enough of the church and king ruling their lives. They revolted and waged a revolution for freedom.

Those founders of the United States of America founded a secular nation with church and state separate. The church having zero influence or authority over government and our laws.

The founders went farther than the constitution to make sure that America was not a christian nation nor founded on christian beliefs when the new congress passed the Treaty of Tripoli that in one part clearly says that America isn't a christian nation and isn't in any sense founded on the christian religion.

Seriously here. Where were you in high school when you were supposed to have learned about all this?

You to are lying.

Just because you say I'm lying doesn't make what you say true.

If you knew anything about honest American history you wouldn't have posted that. Or you do know honest history but still want to argue with me.

No you are wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

IMO, that person has no business being in the medical field. Doctors should not discriminate. Their job is to heal people. Not to judge their lifestyle.

Well ... Your opinion and 75 cents may get you a cup of coffee somewhere ... But, in reference to my comment I specifically posted "for any assortment of reasons" which in no way is limited to your idea of discrimination nor any other qualifiers you may feel justified in adding.

Furthermore ... Your desire to judge someone based on your definition of their duties and preferences ... Is no different than what you seem to be accusing them of.
Feel free to inform us as to what your job description is that allows your judgment to stand or be considered any differently.

.

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

 

[YellowDogDemocrat]

You could be right. What do you think is the purpose of laws? You know you can't legislate beliefs or desires. All you can do is legislate behavior, and some won't like it no matter what the law is. Other than to define acceptable behavior, why do you think we have laws?

If you want to be an arse, there should not be laws against it. That is just silly, IMO. Like I said, capitalism would sort this out. Those businesses who refuse to do business with a person because of such silly reasons are not going to be doing very well. The business down the road that does not discriminate is the one that will get the most business. Of course, that's my opinion, but you cannot legislate morality. And like I said, just how many businesses do you think would practice such AWFUL business sense? Not too many, I think.

You mean like the cotton farmers sorted out who would own slaves?

"YellowDogDemocrat" must be a euphemism meaning "certified idiot."

That's cute. Have you learned any big words yet?

Here's one: sanctimonious. Here's another: pretentious.

So you remembered what they called you, but do you know what they mean?

 

[bripat9643]

If you want to be an arse, there should not be laws against it. That is just silly, IMO. Like I said, capitalism would sort this out. Those businesses who refuse to do business with a person because of such silly reasons are not going to be doing very well. The business down the road that does not discriminate is the one that will get the most business. Of course, that's my opinion, but you cannot legislate morality. And like I said, just how many businesses do you think would practice such AWFUL business sense? Not too many, I think.

You mean like the cotton farmers sorted out who would own slaves?

"YellowDogDemocrat" must be a euphemism meaning "certified idiot."

That's cute. Have you learned any big words yet?

Here's one: sanctimonious. Here's another: pretentious.

So you remembered what they called you, but do you know what they mean?

You're about as funny as hernia.

 

[oldunclemark]

The problem is that Pence is too weak to admit his supporters do not want homosexuals in Indiana to have equal rights

The religious freedom label is a weak cover. Pence cant say what he means..

When you're state has two feet planted firmly in the 1960s...you think the all-white soup kitchens were a good idea, too

 

[YellowDogDemocrat]

You mean like the cotton farmers sorted out who would own slaves?

"YellowDogDemocrat" must be a euphemism meaning "certified idiot."

That's cute. Have you learned any big words yet?

Here's one: sanctimonious. Here's another: pretentious.

So you remembered what they called you, but do you know what they mean?

You're about as funny as hernia.

Not really a big word, but pretty good.

 

[oldunclemark]

Pence says: Hoosiers don't believe in discrimination,

Pence must be from someplace else..

Indiana has ALWAYS been about discrimination....Indiana was the home of the Klan in the first half of the 20th century.

Pence is a liar...an idiot or both

 

[ChrisL]

IMO, that person has no business being in the medical field. Doctors should not discriminate. Their job is to heal people. Not to judge their lifestyle.

Well ... Your opinion and 75 cents may get you a cup of coffee somewhere ... But, in reference to my comment I specifically posted "for any assortment of reasons" which in no way is limited to your idea of discrimination nor any other qualifiers you may feel justified in adding.

Furthermore ... Your desire to judge someone based on your definition of their duties and preferences ... Is no different than what you seem to be accusing them of.
Feel free to inform us as to what your job description is that allows your judgment to stand or be considered any differently.

.

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

 

[BlackSand]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

 

[Vigilante]

When the Supreme Court upheld Hobby Lobby, they upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. There's literally nothing new that's happened here in Indiana that hasn't already been upheld at the Supreme Court and passed US Congress and been signed into law, in this case by Bill Clinton. But you would think... Because this affords the media and the left the perfect opportunity. What we've got here, folks, if I may draw... It's not the perfect analogy, but it's pretty close.

We've got "hands up, don't shoot," except in this case it's supposedly discrimination against gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgenders, and that's not what it is. It's a law that says the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment has been affirmed. But you see, it's selective outrage. Remember the case involving peyote? Remember that, Mr. Snerdley? A bunch of Native Americans wanted an exemption from federal laws against marijuana and similar things like peyote 'cause it was part of their religion.

Peyote was required, they said, for certain religious ceremonies. They got an exemption. Peyote was claimed legal because it was said that we could not infringe on the religious freedoms of Native Americans. I remember when that argument came up because then everybody said, "You know what's gonna happen now? Every crackpot and oddball out there is gonna claim everything he's doing is because of his religion as a means of getting away with it." Now we've done an absolute 180.

The Left Repeats Hands Up Don t Shoot Tactic on the State of Indiana - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

[ChrisL]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

 

[bripat9643]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

 

[ChrisL]

When the Supreme Court upheld Hobby Lobby, they upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. There's literally nothing new that's happened here in Indiana that hasn't already been upheld at the Supreme Court and passed US Congress and been signed into law, in this case by Bill Clinton. But you would think... Because this affords the media and the left the perfect opportunity. What we've got here, folks, if I may draw... It's not the perfect analogy, but it's pretty close.

We've got "hands up, don't shoot," except in this case it's supposedly discrimination against gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgenders, and that's not what it is. It's a law that says the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment has been affirmed. But you see, it's selective outrage. Remember the case involving peyote? Remember that, Mr. Snerdley? A bunch of Native Americans wanted an exemption from federal laws against marijuana and similar things like peyote 'cause it was part of their religion.

Peyote was required, they said, for certain religious ceremonies. They got an exemption. Peyote was claimed legal because it was said that we could not infringe on the religious freedoms of Native Americans. I remember when that argument came up because then everybody said, "You know what's gonna happen now? Every crackpot and oddball out there is gonna claim everything he's doing is because of his religion as a means of getting away with it." Now we've done an absolute 180.

The Left Repeats Hands Up Don t Shoot Tactic on the State of Indiana - The Rush Limbaugh Show

I agree that the government cannot infringe on a person's right to be an arse.

 

[ChrisL]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

THAT is what doctors do. Just like firemen run to the fire instead of away. It's part of their job. Imagine a person is dying and a doctor refuses to treat that person because he or she is gay??? That's a rotten person, IMO. Rotten and that person should not be a doctor.

 

[BlackSand]

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

There weren't any doctors discriminating due to sexual orientation.
Doctors can discriminate for any number of reason that vary from their ability level ... To comfort providing services they do not believe will help the patient ... And so on.

Furthermore ... Doctors don't need your input, description of their duties or approval as far as their ability to refuse treatment.
I got your point ... Your comments are not hard to follow ... Unfortunately they are pointless.

But whatever ... if you want to argue about it some more ... I am game.

.

 

[ChrisL]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

Thinking of my firemen analogy, what if firemen decided, "meh, I'm not going to fight this fire because it's a gay person's home." Or if a police officer said, "meh, I'm not going to this call of a home invasion because it's a gay person." There are certain professions where discrimination of any kind should not be accepted because it's just wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

THAT is what doctors do. Just like firemen run to the fire instead of away. It's part of their job. Imagine a person is dying and a doctor refuses to treat that person because he or she is gay??? That's a rotten person, IMO. Rotten and that person should not be a doctor.

He may be a rotten person, but that isn't a crime. People have a right to be as rotten as they want to be. Forcing a doctor to treat Ebola patients is forcing them to take a massive risk with their own lives. That should be up to them, not some tyrannical law.