Indiana is for Bigots - video and Pence running for cover

[PaintMyHouse]

Someone with money to burn order a wedding cake that looks like a Bible, for a gay wedding.

 

[Rambunctious]

Just more lies from the left...if Indiana is bigoted than so is Bill Clinton...
Here are Clinton's words...
“We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties – religious freedom,” Clinton declared at the time.

“The free exercise of religion has been called the first freedom – that which originally sparked the full range of the Bill of Rights,” he added.

The federal legislation was a bipartisan effort. Groups supporting the federal law ranged from the National Association of Evangelicals to the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Islamic Prison Foundation.

In a ceremony on the south lawn, Clinton said: “Today this event assumes a more majestic quality because of our ability together to affirm the historical role that people of faith have played in the history of this country, and the constitutional protections those that profess and express their faith have always demanded and cherished.”

Clinton said the federal law would do a better job of protecting Americans of all faiths in the practice of their religion.

“What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion,” he explained.

He closed by saying: “Let us never believe that the freedom of religion imposes on any of us some responsibility to run from our convictions – let us instead respect one another’s faith.”

 

[BlackSand]

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

What exactly is equal treatment under the law in regards to making one person forego their own beliefs and lifestyle to make accommodations for another's beliefs and lifestyle?

Now don't get me wrong in thinking that I am arguing the idea that anyone should be discriminated against ... Just wondering how discriminating against one person is more suitable than discriminating against another ... And expecting not to get laughed out of the room in suggesting it represents equal protection under the law.

.

 

[Flopper]

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

What exactly is equal treatment under the law in regards to making one person forego their own beliefs and lifestyle to make accommodations for another's beliefs and lifestyle?

Now don't get me wrong in thinking that I am arguing the idea that anyone should be discriminated against ... Just wondering how discriminating against one person is more suitable than discriminating against another ... And expecting not to get laughed out of the room in suggesting it represents equal protection under the law.

.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

 

[BlackSand]

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

I understand what you are posting and how the law is applied.
I am just wondering why discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class could seriously be considered equal protection under the law.
Giving examples of what is done does not explain how it represents equality.

Now if you want to say a bunch of people figured their discrimination is justified, then I am okay with that ... But that still doesn't make it equal nor does it support the idea the protected class that is discriminated against is actually protected in any way other than unsubstantiated verbage.

.

 

[tinydancer]

The Red Eye talkers

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.

I agree, however doctors do have the right to choose who they treat except in a life threatening emergency as long as their reason relates to the practice of medicine. With this new law, I guess a doctor could reject a patient because they are gay.

What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action. The fact is there are millions of men who are effeminate but aren't gay just as there are women that have masculine features but aren't lesbians. Heterosexual men and women will often show affection to members of their own sex. If will be interesting to see the reaction of heterosexuals when they have been denied service because they have been labeled as being gay; should make interesting lawsuits.

This law will certainly joint the long list of America' stupidest laws.

I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.

I think there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Judge Spense in his ruling in Colorado state wrote, "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are." One has to question what religious beliefs are being violated? Jesus lived among and embraced sinners. His message was of love and forgiveness, not hate.

If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.

The Red Eye talkers brought up this point. The Christian or Muslim baker has no right to refuse selling cupcakes or cookies with a cup of coffee to a gay couple.

I was so tired last night I wish I could remember the name of the legal beagle they were quoting, damn. Sorries I can't give you a link.

But here is where everything changes. If the baker bakes the wedding cake for a gay couples wedding then he/her/they are now actively participating in an act that goes against their faith.

That's how the RFRA came in for Holly Lobby from what I gather. I'm no lawyer, winging it here. To provide the abortion pill would be participating in a sin. I'm simplifying but I hope I'm making sense.

Holly Lobby had no problem with all sorts of contraception. Just the abortion coverage. And the penalty they would endure by refusing to provide this part of the coverage would be too great.

And by the way the Supremes ruling for Holly Lobby was based on the Federal RFRA from 1993. And they expanded the law by their ruling.

 

[bripat9643]

If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.

The Indiana law doesn't treat the baker any different than the plumber, grocer, pharmacist or dentist.
In fact it doesn't say anything about sexual orientation for that matter.

.

That's true. What this law does is make any legal recourse for denial of service based on religious grounds by the baker, plumber, grocery, or any business nearly impossible. The broadening of the definition or "exercise of religion" and other definitions allow a business to deny service for religious reasons without having to worry about legal repercussions. Someone who never put their foot in a church will be able to use religious beliefs as reason for denial of service.

Since this legislation is an addtional chapter consisting of mostly definitions added to Indiana Code I34-13, you have to read it in that context to understand the impact.

Religious liberty or discrimination Read the text of Indiana s religious freedom law - The Washington Post

Good!

 

[bripat9643]

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

What exactly is equal treatment under the law in regards to making one person forego their own beliefs and lifestyle to make accommodations for another's beliefs and lifestyle?

Now don't get me wrong in thinking that I am arguing the idea that anyone should be discriminated against ... Just wondering how discriminating against one person is more suitable than discriminating against another ... And expecting not to get laughed out of the room in suggesting it represents equal protection under the law.

.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

Nope. The only time it's "wrong" in the sense that it should be outlawed is when government is involved. Private citizens haven't violated anyone's right by discriminating against them because no one has a right to be served. Making people do things is not what rights are.

 

[ChrisL]

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

What exactly is equal treatment under the law in regards to making one person forego their own beliefs and lifestyle to make accommodations for another's beliefs and lifestyle?

Now don't get me wrong in thinking that I am arguing the idea that anyone should be discriminated against ... Just wondering how discriminating against one person is more suitable than discriminating against another ... And expecting not to get laughed out of the room in suggesting it represents equal protection under the law.

.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

Nope. The only time it's "wrong" in the sense that it should be outlawed is when government is involved. Private citizens haven't violated anyone's right by discriminating against them because no one has a right to be served. Making people do things is not what rights are.

Sure, I agree that they don't have to serve anyone, but it's one dumbass business decision and they WILL pay for it. Times have changed. About time some of you conservatives acknowledge that. We aren't living in the 1950s anymore.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

What exactly is equal treatment under the law in regards to making one person forego their own beliefs and lifestyle to make accommodations for another's beliefs and lifestyle?

Now don't get me wrong in thinking that I am arguing the idea that anyone should be discriminated against ... Just wondering how discriminating against one person is more suitable than discriminating against another ... And expecting not to get laughed out of the room in suggesting it represents equal protection under the law.

.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

Nope. The only time it's "wrong" in the sense that it should be outlawed is when government is involved. Private citizens haven't violated anyone's right by discriminating against them because no one has a right to be served. Making people do things is not what rights are.

Sure, I agree that they don't have to serve anyone, but it's one dumbass business decision and they WILL pay for it. Times have changed. About time some of you conservatives acknowledge that. We aren't living in the 1950s anymore.

They would prefer the 1850's if not, I swear, the 1550's.

And regardless, by law, we can drag the knuckle-draggers into the future, kicking and screaming.

 

[ChrisL]

If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.

The Indiana law doesn't treat the baker any different than the plumber, grocer, pharmacist or dentist.
In fact it doesn't say anything about sexual orientation for that matter.

.

That's true. What this law does is make any legal recourse for denial of service based on religious grounds by the baker, plumber, grocery, or any business nearly impossible. The broadening of the definition or "exercise of religion" and other definitions allow a business to deny service for religious reasons without having to worry about legal repercussions. Someone who never put their foot in a church will be able to use religious beliefs as reason for denial of service.

Since this legislation is an addtional chapter consisting of mostly definitions added to Indiana Code I34-13, you have to read it in that context to understand the impact.

Religious liberty or discrimination Read the text of Indiana s religious freedom law - The Washington Post

You are absolutely right, but I still don't think a business such as a bakery should HAVE to serve anyone. A doctor, a firefighter, a police officer, different story. I do think it is a really STUPID business practice though. Lol. I think capitalism will take care of this problem, just as it is doing with the boycotts right now. Businesses who employ such discriminatory practices will lose business. The business down the road that does not, will gain that business. They are only hurting themselves, IMO. No need to punish them with the law.

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't this law would extend to any public services, like police, fire departments. I also THINK it's already against the law for a hospital to turn away a sick patient.

With your funeral home example, though, that would be an inconvenience to the gay person, that's pretty much about it. They might have to go to the next town over or something.

Keep in mind, I don't agree with bigotry and think that it's terrible, but I think it is a private business owner's right to do business with who he or she chooses. That doesn't make it right though. I think it's asinine just to be clear. I just think the government has no right to say you MUST do business with this person if you own a small private business.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

What exactly is equal treatment under the law in regards to making one person forego their own beliefs and lifestyle to make accommodations for another's beliefs and lifestyle?

Now don't get me wrong in thinking that I am arguing the idea that anyone should be discriminated against ... Just wondering how discriminating against one person is more suitable than discriminating against another ... And expecting not to get laughed out of the room in suggesting it represents equal protection under the law.

.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

Nope. The only time it's "wrong" in the sense that it should be outlawed is when government is involved. Private citizens haven't violated anyone's right by discriminating against them because no one has a right to be served. Making people do things is not what rights are.

Sure, I agree that they don't have to serve anyone, but it's one dumbass business decision and they WILL pay for it. Times have changed. About time some of you conservatives acknowledge that. We aren't living in the 1950s anymore.

I think your getting sucked into the Leftist narrative that conservatives are pining for any opportunity to discriminate. In fact if public accommodation laws were repealed, very little would change because racism is not a conservative value, and tolerance is and always has been. Leftists are deluded and project the impious bigotry in their own hearts onto others.

 

[ChrisL]

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved. The problem with saying no to doctors who might want to deny service but yes to a funeral home is you get into a raft of extenuating circumstances. That doctor might be one of thousands that can render the service. A funeral home may be the only one in town. One hospital might feel they should have the right to say no because there are a number of other hospitals in the town but maybe the patient insurance is not accepted elsewhere. My point is there is an infinite number extenuation circumstances and that creates a real problem with providing equal treatment under the law.

For most businesses denying service is bad policy. It can lead to boycotts, being vilified in the media, and loss of business Although gays and lesbians only constitute an estimated 10% of the population maybe less, gay people have mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, neighbors, and business associates. A business man that adopts a policy denying service to gays and lesbians may find he's taken a much bigger hit than he anticipated.

What exactly is equal treatment under the law in regards to making one person forego their own beliefs and lifestyle to make accommodations for another's beliefs and lifestyle?

Now don't get me wrong in thinking that I am arguing the idea that anyone should be discriminated against ... Just wondering how discriminating against one person is more suitable than discriminating against another ... And expecting not to get laughed out of the room in suggesting it represents equal protection under the law.

.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

Nope. The only time it's "wrong" in the sense that it should be outlawed is when government is involved. Private citizens haven't violated anyone's right by discriminating against them because no one has a right to be served. Making people do things is not what rights are.

Sure, I agree that they don't have to serve anyone, but it's one dumbass business decision and they WILL pay for it. Times have changed. About time some of you conservatives acknowledge that. We aren't living in the 1950s anymore.

I think your getting sucked into the Leftist narrative that conservatives are pining for any opportunity to discriminate. In fact if public accommodation laws were repealed, very little would change because racism is not a conservative value, and tolerance is and always has been. Leftists are deluded and project the impious bigotry in their own hearts onto others.

Well, you would never know that by reading some of the posts on these forums. Some people make it QUITE clear that they are more than willing to treat homosexual people as less than human because of their religious beliefs.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, you would never know that by reading some of the posts on these forums. Some people make it QUITE clear that they are more than willing to treat homosexual people as less than human because of their religious beliefs.

Then they aren't true Christians and cannot claim to be.

In the following discussion, this article's survey of over 3,000 gay men is "the Given":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Jude 1 divides the homosexual issue into two components and prescribes a different protocol for each:

1. The individual homosexual, who the Christian is supposed to reach out to in compassion "making a difference" in their disfigured lives. The reward for doing this is salvation for the Christian.

2. The homosexual movement, the subculture that always seeks to overthrow normal values in its twisted quest to feel legitimate and not have to face the source of its pain by bumping up against moral values. Sodom was given as an example. But in Jude 1 of the New Testament (the Bible of modern Christians) it said that the same applies to other cities like Sodom. San Francisco would be a modern example. Ancient Greece, another. The "reward" for failing to stave off this advancement is eternity in the pit of fire for any Christian who fails.

Apparently it is (very) important to God that the matrix itself within which all humans learn and live and are tested, not be fundamentally tampered with. I'll leave readers here to meditate on why that is...

Since marriage is the hub of any culture, homosexuals seeking to overtake it is one and the same as homosexuals seeking to take over a culture. A Christian who partakes in enabling that, by choice or by force, is damned either way to the pit of fire. A Christian has no choice. They MUST not participate in so-called "gay marriage". Just as they MUST not harm individual gays: Grand Theater in California Shocked Sodomite Suppression Act US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I laugh at the title of this thread BTW. "Pence running for cover"....and all the GOP bigwigs too who have got his back? I think they've seen the poll on this thread and have done the math: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 831 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

82%.....impressive!

 

[NYcarbineer]

How funny is it that the corporations are steamrolling the Christian Right and all of its nutty supporters?

It's the Voice of the Corporations are People my friend!

lol

 

[ChrisL]

Well, you would never know that by reading some of the posts on these forums. Some people make it QUITE clear that they are more than willing to treat homosexual people as less than human because of their religious beliefs.

Then they aren't true Christians and cannot claim to be.

In the following discussion, this article's survey of over 3,000 gay men is "the Given":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Jude 1 divides the homosexual issue into two components and prescribes a different protocol for each:

1. The individual homosexual, who the Christian is supposed to reach out to in compassion "making a difference" in their disfigured lives. The reward for doing this is salvation for the Christian.

2. The homosexual movement, the subculture that always seeks to overthrow normal values in its twisted quest to feel legitimate and not have to face the source of its pain by bumping up against moral values. Sodom was given as an example. But in Jude 1 of the New Testament (the Bible of modern Christians) it said that the same applies to other cities like Sodom. San Francisco would be a modern example. Ancient Greece, another. The "reward" for failing to stave off this advancement is eternity in the pit of fire for any Christian who fails.

Apparently it is (very) important to God that the matrix itself within which all humans learn and live and are tested, not be fundamentally tampered with. I'll leave readers here to meditate on why that is...

Since marriage is the hub of any culture, homosexuals seeking to overtake it is one and the same as homosexuals seeking to take over a culture. A Christian who partakes in enabling that, by choice or by force, is damned either way to the pit of fire. A Christian has no choice. They MUST not participate in so-called "gay marriage". Just as they MUST not harm individual gays: Grand Theater in California Shocked Sodomite Suppression Act US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I laugh at the title of this thread BTW. "Pence running for cover"....and all the GOP bigwigs too who have got his back? I think they've seen the poll on this thread and have done the math: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 831 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

82%.....impressive!

So . . . you take one stance in your first paragraph and then defend bigotry in the next five? Lol. Let your GOD be the judge. It's not your job to judge. Regardless of your religion, homosexuals are human beings.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What exactly is equal treatment under the law in regards to making one person forego their own beliefs and lifestyle to make accommodations for another's beliefs and lifestyle?

Now don't get me wrong in thinking that I am arguing the idea that anyone should be discriminated against ... Just wondering how discriminating against one person is more suitable than discriminating against another ... And expecting not to get laughed out of the room in suggesting it represents equal protection under the law.

.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

Nope. The only time it's "wrong" in the sense that it should be outlawed is when government is involved. Private citizens haven't violated anyone's right by discriminating against them because no one has a right to be served. Making people do things is not what rights are.

Sure, I agree that they don't have to serve anyone, but it's one dumbass business decision and they WILL pay for it. Times have changed. About time some of you conservatives acknowledge that. We aren't living in the 1950s anymore.

I think your getting sucked into the Leftist narrative that conservatives are pining for any opportunity to discriminate. In fact if public accommodation laws were repealed, very little would change because racism is not a conservative value, and tolerance is and always has been. Leftists are deluded and project the impious bigotry in their own hearts onto others.

Well, you would never know that by reading some of the posts on these forums. Some people make it QUITE clear that they are more than willing to treat homosexual people as less than human because of their religious beliefs.

Actually the only time I see conservatives propose to turn away gay people is when their service would categorically support their lifestyle, such as catering for gay weddings. Conservatives are very easy going people and don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms until it's shoved in their faces. I think you've become convinced of a myth that never has been true.

 

[ChrisL]

There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.

Nope. The only time it's "wrong" in the sense that it should be outlawed is when government is involved. Private citizens haven't violated anyone's right by discriminating against them because no one has a right to be served. Making people do things is not what rights are.

Sure, I agree that they don't have to serve anyone, but it's one dumbass business decision and they WILL pay for it. Times have changed. About time some of you conservatives acknowledge that. We aren't living in the 1950s anymore.

I think your getting sucked into the Leftist narrative that conservatives are pining for any opportunity to discriminate. In fact if public accommodation laws were repealed, very little would change because racism is not a conservative value, and tolerance is and always has been. Leftists are deluded and project the impious bigotry in their own hearts onto others.

Well, you would never know that by reading some of the posts on these forums. Some people make it QUITE clear that they are more than willing to treat homosexual people as less than human because of their religious beliefs.

Actually the only time I see conservatives propose to turn away gay people is when their service would categorically support their lifestyle, such as catering for gay weddings. Conservatives are very easy going people and don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms until it's shoved in their faces. I think you've become convinced of a myth that never has been true.

Good Lord, baking a cake does NOT mean you support the "gay lifestyle." It's baking a damn cake. Nobody is shoving anything in your face by asking you to bake a cake.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, you would never know that by reading some of the posts on these forums. Some people make it QUITE clear that they are more than willing to treat homosexual people as less than human because of their religious beliefs.

Then they aren't true Christians and cannot claim to be.

In the following discussion, this article's survey of over 3,000 gay men is "the Given":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Jude 1 divides the homosexual issue into two components and prescribes a different protocol for each:

1. The individual homosexual, who the Christian is supposed to reach out to in compassion "making a difference" in their disfigured lives. The reward for doing this is salvation for the Christian.

2. The homosexual movement, the subculture that always seeks to overthrow normal values in its twisted quest to feel legitimate and not have to face the source of its pain by bumping up against moral values. Sodom was given as an example. But in Jude 1 of the New Testament (the Bible of modern Christians) it said that the same applies to other cities like Sodom. San Francisco would be a modern example. Ancient Greece, another. The "reward" for failing to stave off this advancement is eternity in the pit of fire for any Christian who fails.

Apparently it is (very) important to God that the matrix itself within which all humans learn and live and are tested, not be fundamentally tampered with. I'll leave readers here to meditate on why that is...

Since marriage is the hub of any culture, homosexuals seeking to overtake it is one and the same as homosexuals seeking to take over a culture. A Christian who partakes in enabling that, by choice or by force, is damned either way to the pit of fire. A Christian has no choice. They MUST not participate in so-called "gay marriage". Just as they MUST not harm individual gays: Grand Theater in California Shocked Sodomite Suppression Act US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I laugh at the title of this thread BTW. "Pence running for cover"....and all the GOP bigwigs too who have got his back? I think they've seen the poll on this thread and have done the math: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 831 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

82%.....impressive!

So . . . you take one stance in your first paragraph and then defend bigotry in the next five? Lol. Let your GOD be the judge. It's not your job to judge. Regardless of your religion, homosexuals are human beings.

The ill don't make great judges of their own behavior. Did you read the results of the 3,000 gay men questioned? Childhood molestation survivors and their resulting habituated behaviors are not to be mainstreamed. They are to be dealt with compassionately. You are coming from a premise of "trying to copulate with the same gender and play pretend mom and dad is OK". The Christian faith teaches that it is not. There's the impasse. And it is precisely that impasse that Pence is dealing with.

You seem to forget there are two sides to the "is homosexuality to be normalized" debate. Pence hasn't forgotten that. Neither have 82% of the repondents to the "Should Churches..." poll.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, you would never know that by reading some of the posts on these forums. Some people make it QUITE clear that they are more than willing to treat homosexual people as less than human because of their religious beliefs.

Then they aren't true Christians and cannot claim to be.

In the following discussion, this article's survey of over 3,000 gay men is "the Given":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Jude 1 divides the homosexual issue into two components and prescribes a different protocol for each:

1. The individual homosexual, who the Christian is supposed to reach out to in compassion "making a difference" in their disfigured lives. The reward for doing this is salvation for the Christian.

2. The homosexual movement, the subculture that always seeks to overthrow normal values in its twisted quest to feel legitimate and not have to face the source of its pain by bumping up against moral values. Sodom was given as an example. But in Jude 1 of the New Testament (the Bible of modern Christians) it said that the same applies to other cities like Sodom. San Francisco would be a modern example. Ancient Greece, another. The "reward" for failing to stave off this advancement is eternity in the pit of fire for any Christian who fails.

Apparently it is (very) important to God that the matrix itself within which all humans learn and live and are tested, not be fundamentally tampered with. I'll leave readers here to meditate on why that is...

Since marriage is the hub of any culture, homosexuals seeking to overtake it is one and the same as homosexuals seeking to take over a culture. A Christian who partakes in enabling that, by choice or by force, is damned either way to the pit of fire. A Christian has no choice. They MUST not participate in so-called "gay marriage". Just as they MUST not harm individual gays: Grand Theater in California Shocked Sodomite Suppression Act US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I laugh at the title of this thread BTW. "Pence running for cover"....and all the GOP bigwigs too who have got his back? I think they've seen the poll on this thread and have done the math: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 831 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

82%.....impressive!

So . . . you take one stance in your first paragraph and then defend bigotry in the next five? Lol. Let your GOD be the judge. It's not your job to judge. Regardless of your religion, homosexuals are human beings.

The ill don't make great judges of their own behavior. Did you read the results of the 3,000 gay men questioned? Childhood molestation survivors and their resulting habituated behaviors are not to be mainstreamed. They are to be dealt with compassionately. You are coming from a premise of "trying to copulate with the same gender and play pretend mom and dad is OK". The Christian faith teaches that it is not. There's the impasse. And it is precisely that impasse that Pence is dealing with.

You seem to forget there are two sides to the "is homosexuality to be normalized" debate. Pence hasn't forgotten that. Neither have 82% of the repondents to the "Should Churches..." poll.

I haven't said anything about any of those things. The only reason why a person would refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple is because of their hatred. That's the bottom line. There is no other logical explanation. It's not YOUR job to judge them. God doesn't need your help. Baking a cake or taking pictures or whatever is NOT approving of anyone's lifestyle. In fact, there are a plenty of sleazy heterosexuals couples who get married for money or who have no intentions on being faithful, some are abusive, etc.

Not only that, but if you had been reading my posts, I said I am okay with this law. It just outs the ugly bigots, and a LOT of people would choose not to do business with such hateful people.