Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If the Indiana law is not designed to give people the religious excuse to discriminate against gays (or others)
WHAT IS IT DESIGNED TO DO??????
If the Indiana law is not designed to give people the religious excuse to discriminate against gays (or others)
WHAT IS IT DESIGNED TO DO??????
perhaps individually practice their Constitutional right to freedom of religion.....?
what is with all these whiny gays anyway....? Oh that's right....they are useful idiots and tools of the Left....
it's impossible to lecture an asshole.....it didn't need to ...learn to read...
Whahahahah!!!! Oho, Oho!
YOU lecturing ME on learning to read?! Read this:
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
This ruling upheld the Constitutionality of the RFRA. You have no leg to stand on. Go learn to read, whelp.
it's impossible to lecture an asshole.....it didn't need to ...learn to read...
Whahahahah!!!! Oho, Oho!
YOU lecturing ME on learning to read?! Read this:
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
This ruling upheld the Constitutionality of the RFRA. You have no leg to stand on. Go learn to read, whelp.
lecture
[ ˈlekCHər ]
NOUN
noun: lecture · plural noun: lectures
an educational talk to an audience
If the Indiana law is not designed to give people the religious excuse to discriminate against gays (or others)
WHAT IS IT DESIGNED TO DO??????
perhaps individually practice their Constitutional right to freedom of religion....ya think?
what is with all these whiny gays anyway....? Oh that's right....they are useful idiots and tools of the Left....
it's impossible to lecture an asshole.....it didn't need to ...learn to read...
Whahahahah!!!! Oho, Oho!
YOU lecturing ME on learning to read?! Read this:
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
This ruling upheld the Constitutionality of the RFRA. You have no leg to stand on. Go learn to read, whelp.
lecture
[ ˈlekCHər ]
NOUN
noun: lecture · plural noun: lectures
an educational talk to an audience
Well, this is what happens when someone gets their butt thoroughly kicked in a debate. What have you done to disprove me?
You lose.
ALL florists and bakers are right wing religious zealots?Why did Governor Pence go virtually epileptic Sunday when asked the simple question would the law allow a florists and bakers to discriminate against gays?
Either it does or it doesn't.
Does it? Doesn't it?
Why did Governor Pence go virtually epileptic Sunday when asked the simple question would the law allow a florists and bakers to discriminate against gays?
really? nothing's happened except you claiming as usual a false victory...it's impossible to lecture an asshole.....it didn't need to ...learn to read...
Whahahahah!!!! Oho, Oho!
YOU lecturing ME on learning to read?! Read this:
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
This ruling upheld the Constitutionality of the RFRA. You have no leg to stand on. Go learn to read, whelp.
lecture
[ ˈlekCHər ]
NOUN
noun: lecture · plural noun: lectures
an educational talk to an audience
Well, this is what happens when someone gets their butt thoroughly kicked in a debate. What have you done to disprove me?
You lose.
This is Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993, signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, introduced by none other than Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:
Now, to clear a few things up, I'm going to quote text from both laws for you the reader to compare:
From Indiana Code Section 1 IC34-13-9 :
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
From the Federal law 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993):
(a)In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
Indiana's governor says his law mirrors the Federal Law. It does. Nearly word for word. So, why the selective outrage? Why isn't anyone upset at the Federal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!
Why did Governor Pence go virtually epileptic Sunday when asked the simple question would the law allow a florists and bakers to discriminate against gays?
Because the optics change depending upon which direction the question is asked from.
People react differently when the question is framed, "Can gays sue a photographer who declines to take on their wedding?"
"Can a florist legally decline to accept a job if the potential client is gay?"
"Can a cake decorator legally be forced to decorate a cake with a gay Jesus?"
Bring on Nancy Pelosi and ask her, "Does the law protect 1st Amendment Constitutional rights of private business owners to freely exercise their religion?"
You're an idiot. Like that's news. The case did not strike down the RFRA. The case declared that Congress could not bind hte states to it although it could bind the federal gov't. This is why states, like Indiana, passed their own version of the federal legislation.
Unconstitutional Restoration - The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religious Liberty in America
not all, just the bigoted ones...flowers and cake don't care who smells them or eats them.ALL florists and bakers are right wing religious zealots?Why did Governor Pence go virtually epileptic Sunday when asked the simple question would the law allow a florists and bakers to discriminate against gays?
Either it does or it doesn't.
Does it? Doesn't it?
Who knew?
Anopinion pice by the Atlantic.This is Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993, signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, introduced by none other than Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:
Now, to clear a few things up, I'm going to quote text from both laws for you the reader to compare:
From Indiana Code Section 1 IC34-13-9 :
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
From the Federal law 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993):
(a)In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
Indiana's governor says his law mirrors the Federal Law. It does. Nearly word for word. So, why the selective outrage? Why isn't anyone upset at the Federal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!
Here are the differences. Next time do your own research before you make a fool of yourself:
Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation The Atlantic
Why did Governor Pence go virtually epileptic Sunday when asked the simple question would the law allow a florists and bakers to discriminate against gays?
Because the optics change depending upon which direction the question is asked from.
People react differently when the question is framed, "Can gays sue a photographer who declines to take on their wedding?"
"Can a florist legally decline to accept a job if the potential client is gay?"
"Can a cake decorator legally be forced to decorate a cake with a gay Jesus?"
Bring on Nancy Pelosi and ask her, "Does the law protect 1st Amendment Constitutional rights of private business owners to freely exercise their religion?"
Who fucking cares......Islam...or more precisely many parts of Sharia Law....are in conflict with our Constitution...Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??
Yep. So why is are there Americans wanting laws passed based on their particular brand of religion?
Why are certain RWs against it when Muslims do it but all in favor of it when its American fundies?
