Remember When Democrats Used To Support Religious Freedom?

[CowboyTed]

One of them doesn't want to kill you for being a homosexual.

Really, which one? I have no doubt Christians would go back to killing homosexuals if they thought they can get away with it.

And if you're Matt Shephard, some guys thought htey could.

JoeB,

Generally agree with you there. But could we not call them 'Christians' , I would question if they are not bigots using the Bible. The Bible has plenty of places where it states what these bigots are doing is wrong.
Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged....'

Actually this would suggest they are going completely against it:
Matthew 9:10-13
While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”


So believers in the bible?

 

[Seawytch]

It's a growing concern; the only difference between fanatical Christianity and fanatical Islam is usually a sheet and a pointy white hat.

Interesting. The difference is quite noticeable. The difference between Christianity and Islam is:
One of them doesn't want to kill you for being a homosexual.

Really? You sure about that? You've heard, of course, of Uganda's "kill the gays" bill?

Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda's Anti-Gay Crackdown

How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Where does the Bible say you can't bake a cake for gays?

The Bible says you should kill gays.

The bible also says you should kill women who wear pants or have sex before they are married.

Yet, oddly, we don't see a bunch of bakers insisting on their right to refuse service to pant wearing non-virgins because "Jay-a-zus"!

This is just a case of bigots hiding behind the bible.

You mean out of all the severe rule found in the Bible, the fake Christians are choosing to enforce them 100% only on the gays?/But they don't hate them, right,?

 

[Vigilante]

All we have to see or know about the GODLESS DemocRATS.... come on you people with any kind of religious background, is THIS SHIT what you want to vote for?

Well you have frequently rejected democracy... You are looking for a dictatorship of some sort I think.

How, when and where? Or just more rhetoric and diversion from a subversive?

 

[Ragnar]

As to "forced celebratory approval" I admit a little Steynian hyperbole in the phrasiology, he was addressing the cultural climate not a set of laws on the books. (yet, lol) However, people are losing their jobs, having their buisness' attacked and closed as well as being kicked out of school all on dubious legal grounds or none whatsoever. The climate is clearly tilting toward the totalitarian.

All that said, I'm happy to boycott a bigoted bakery, laugh at the ignorent a-hole frat boys and shrug when CEO gets fired for supporting a years old losing cause. But when the Left's jackboots come stomping around looking to make hay, money, trouble and most frighteningly seek political power... it gets my notice.

I refuse to join the two minutes of hate currently directed at my neighbor State. They will figure it out and get it right eventually.

People are losing their jobs because no one wants to work with an ignorant homophobe. Just like no one wants to work with a racist, an anti-semite or a misogynist who can't keep him mouth shut.

If people are losing their businesses, it's because they are breaking the law. Now, Indiana can probably get away with "Let's make Hate legal" for a few years, but companies are already pulling out of the state over it.

Hate is legal in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. All the RFRA's do is protect, in some cases, the individual right to practice a recognized religion. The text on those laws, in every case, does not allow for discrimination on a broad level.

So if you are a farmer who needs a pig slaughtered, the RFRA says it is not illegal discrimination for a Jewish butcher to refuse your business. Bakers and florist still must serve everyone equally but might not be forced to participate in gay weddings in some cases.

The cases of people's religious rights being abused are rare but very real. Even as an atheist I can see that. Just are rare but real are abuses of the rights of homosexuals in Indiana. Both deserve protection.

10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana s

After being baptized in the Sikh faith, Kawal Tagore began carrying a kirpan, “an emblem resembling a small knife with a blunt, curved blade” that reminds Sikhs of their commitment to justice. It’s one of five articles of faith baptized Sikhs are supposed to carry.

She was told to go home from her job with the IRS in a federal building in Houston and told not to return. The building allowed scissors, knives, box cutters and other items with far sharper blades than her kirpan, but they wouldn’t let her carry her religiously required emblem. After working from home for nine months, she was fired.

She sought protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and on November 4, 2014, the government agreed to settle the case.

 

[JoeB131]

Hate is legal in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. All the RFRA's do is protect, in some cases, the individual right to practice a recognized religion. The text on those laws, in every case, does not allow for discrimination on a broad level.

Indiana's law is different from RFRA's in other states, as it is specifically designed to protect Hate as a religious right. Even Pence is backing off. Watch for this law to get modified in the next few months after Indy loses a bunch of business.

So if you are a farmer who needs a pig slaughtered, the RFRA says it is not illegal discrimination for a Jewish butcher to refuse your business. Bakers and florist still must serve everyone equally but might not be forced to participate in gay weddings in some cases.

The cases of people's religious rights being abused are rare but very real. Even as an atheist I can see that. Just are rare but real are abuses of the rights of homosexuals in Indiana. Both deserve protection.

That's a ridiculous comparison. A Jewish butcher would refuse to butcher any Pig (or other unclean animal), but he wouldn't say, "I'll butch a pig for you but not for him", which is what the homophobic florists and bakers are saying.

Incidentally, I think the RFRA on the federal level was an awful law. The fact that it has resulted in thousands of lawsuits filed by inmates, who try to claim special privileges based on a religion they are the only member of is proof of that. But at least that was well intentioned.

This is just letting a bunch of religious homophobes have one little bit of hate they can cling to now that they've LOST the marriage argument.

Fuck 'em.

 

[Ragnar]

Hate is legal in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. All the RFRA's do is protect, in some cases, the individual right to practice a recognized religion. The text on those laws, in every case, does not allow for discrimination on a broad level.

Indiana's law is different from RFRA's in other states, as it is specifically designed to protect Hate as a religious right. Even Pence is backing off. Watch for this law to get modified in the next few months after Indy loses a bunch of business.

So if you are a farmer who needs a pig slaughtered, the RFRA says it is not illegal discrimination for a Jewish butcher to refuse your business. Bakers and florist still must serve everyone equally but might not be forced to participate in gay weddings in some cases.

The cases of people's religious rights being abused are rare but very real. Even as an atheist I can see that. Just are rare but real are abuses of the rights of homosexuals in Indiana. Both deserve protection.

That's a ridiculous comparison. A Jewish butcher would refuse to butcher any Pig (or other unclean animal), but he wouldn't say, "I'll butch a pig for you but not for him", which is what the homophobic florists and bakers are saying.

Incidentally, I think the RFRA on the federal level was an awful law. The fact that it has resulted in thousands of lawsuits filed by inmates, who try to claim special privileges based on a religion they are the only member of is proof of that. But at least that was well intentioned.

This is just letting a bunch of religious homophobes have one little bit of hate they can cling to now that they've LOST the marriage argument.

Fuck 'em.

Hate need not enter into it at all. (and isn't against the law anyway) If the florist and bakers were denying homosexuals outright, the RFRA would not protect them. What some are seeking is the right not to be compelled to participate in a religious ceremony (wedding).

RFRA's can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.It is merely a standard of defense against administrative action or lawsuits. (and far from a guarantee of success)

Indiana's failing, if you can call it that, is in not adding homosexuals as a protected class in other laws in the ways that women and minorities are in most States, but even that presupposes there are ANY businesses in the entire State that are actually violating the rights of gays. I've yet to see a recent modern case in this entire kerfuffle.

 

[JoeB131]

Hate need not enter into it at all. (and isn't against the law anyway) If the florist and bakers were denying homosexuals outright, the RFRA would not protect them. What some are seeking is the right not to be compelled to participate in a religious ceremony (wedding).

Uh, the bakers and florists don't participate. They provide a service. A service they said they would provide.

RFRA's can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.It is merely a standard of defense against administrative action or lawsuits. (and far from a guarantee of success)

Shouldn't that be a matter for courts to decide?

Indiana's failing, if you can call it that, is in not adding homosexuals as a protected class in other laws in the ways that women and minorities are in most States, but even that presupposes there are ANY businesses in the entire State that are actually violating the rights of gays. I've yet to see a recent modern case in this entire kerfuffle.

Indiana's mistake was thinking it would get away this this kind of hateful bullshit in 2015 and no one would call them on it. Look how fast Pence is backtracking..OOOOPS< I think he dropped his Presidential Bid. Heh, heh. heh....

 

[Ragnar]

Hate need not enter into it at all. (and isn't against the law anyway) If the florist and bakers were denying homosexuals outright, the RFRA would not protect them. What some are seeking is the right not to be compelled to participate in a religious ceremony (wedding).

Uh, the bakers and florists don't participate. They provide a service. A service they said they would provide.

RFRA's can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.It is merely a standard of defense against administrative action or lawsuits. (and far from a guarantee of success)

Shouldn't that be a matter for courts to decide?

Indiana's failing, if you can call it that, is in not adding homosexuals as a protected class in other laws in the ways that women and minorities are in most States, but even that presupposes there are ANY businesses in the entire State that are actually violating the rights of gays. I've yet to see a recent modern case in this entire kerfuffle.

Indiana's mistake was thinking it would get away this this kind of hateful bullshit in 2015 and no one would call them on it. Look how fast Pence is backtracking..OOOOPS< I think he dropped his Presidential Bid. Heh, heh. heh....

1- Providing a service to a religious sacrament is a reasonable qualifier for participation.

2- It has been a court matter for two decades and in no case have RFRA's been used as a license for discrimination. RFRA's have a "success" rate (from the defendent's point of view) of a little less than 50%.

3- There is nothing hatefull or anti-gay in the text of any RFRA law. As to Pence not running for POTUS...hallelujah! lol

For the record, there is nothing inconsistant in being pro-gay rights and simultaneously pro-religious liberty.Both goals can be met sans coercion.

I will change my mind on the RFRA brouhaha the first time they are used to legitimize discrimination against a protected class. The next time they do will be the first.

 

[JoeB131]

1- Providing a service to a religious sacrament is a reasonable qualifier for participation.

Well, no, not really. Assuming they belong to one of those "Right With Jesus" Churches that don't let the gheys get married, then it isn't a sacrement at all.

2- It has been a court matter for two decades and in no case have RFRA's been used as a license for discrimination. RFRA's have a "success" rate (from the defendent's point of view) of a little less than 50%.

First, the previous RFRA's were not written to apply to the religion of businesses. The concept of a business being a person with a religion would have been considered ludicrous 20 years ago. thei RFRA was written to allow discrimination against gays.

3- There is nothing hatefull or anti-gay in the text of any RFRA law. As to Pence not running for POTUS...hallelujah! lol

For the record, there is nothing inconsistant in being pro-gay rights and simultaneously pro-religious liberty.Both goals can be met sans coercion.

I will change my mind on the RFRA brouhaha the first time they are used to legitimize discrimination against a protected class. The next time they do will be the first.

This was entirely about hating the gays. You've lost on Marriage, this is your last stand, and frankly, it's kind of pathetic.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Actually, the RFRA was a disaster. What it lead to was a bunch of lawsuits, most of them from Convicts, claiming religious exemptions from laws.

It led to a bunch of people suing businesses claiming that their smoking of pot and peyote was "religious" in nature and they couldnt' be fired.

links?

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, the RFRA was a disaster. What it lead to was a bunch of lawsuits, most of them from Convicts, claiming religious exemptions from laws.

It led to a bunch of people suing businesses claiming that their smoking of pot and peyote was "religious" in nature and they couldnt' be fired.

links?

I don't do links for assholes too lazy or stupid to use Google.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It's kind of sad to watch the Homophobes, now having LOST the argument on gay marriage, now cling to this last little bit of homophobia instead of just coming to terms with it.

Just bake the fucking cake and shut up.

And serve the cake at our reception they'll say, while their friends get drunk and have gay sex on the dance floor. No straight wants to see that. Watch a gay pride parade in person or on YouTube sometime. It's against their Christian, Jewish, Muslim religion to be involved in gay rituals. Freedom of religion protects that. You will lose in the Supreme Court over this. And it looks like it will come to this. You can't write a law requiring people to go against their religious freedoms. This law affirms freedoms. Indians smoke peyote because of this law. SCOTUS says so.

 

[Ragnar]

1- Providing a service to a religious sacrament is a reasonable qualifier for participation.

Well, no, not really. Assuming they belong to one of those "Right With Jesus" Churches that don't let the gheys get married, then it isn't a sacrement at all.

2- It has been a court matter for two decades and in no case have RFRA's been used as a license for discrimination. RFRA's have a "success" rate (from the defendent's point of view) of a little less than 50%.

First, the previous RFRA's were not written to apply to the religion of businesses. The concept of a business being a person with a religion would have been considered ludicrous 20 years ago. thei RFRA was written to allow discrimination against gays.

3- There is nothing hatefull or anti-gay in the text of any RFRA law. As to Pence not running for POTUS...hallelujah! lol

For the record, there is nothing inconsistant in being pro-gay rights and simultaneously pro-religious liberty.Both goals can be met sans coercion.

I will change my mind on the RFRA brouhaha the first time they are used to legitimize discrimination against a protected class. The next time they do will be the first.

This was entirely about hating the gays. You've lost on Marriage, this is your last stand, and frankly, it's kind of pathetic.

Of course marriage is a religious sacrament, that is one of the whole points for supporting gay marriage over civil unions.

RFRA's changed as a result of another idea considered ludicrous 20 years ago: Obamacare. (see SC Hobby Lobby case) Forcing christian employers to buy abortifacients, in part, led us to this brand new hell. And RFRA's still do not allow discrimination.

I won on marriage fwiw as I am pro-gay marriage. That does not mean I'm in favor of forcing your wedding planner to plan your wedding at gunpoint.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No one is forcing celebratory approval.

The issue of Public Accommodation is settled law. If you have a business and you are offering goods and services to the public, you have to offer them to all the businesses you like. you can have a religion. Your business cannot, because it is a public accommodation.

PA violates the 1st Amendment. We now have something to take to SCOTUS. When a law butts heads with the Bill of Rights, it doesn't fare well. Thanks to your side's insistences, blacks may be sitting outside lunch counters for awhile until the PA law gets revised so you jackasses can't use it to claim straights have to participate in gay rituals.

 

[bodecea]

REmember when religious freedom (except for the Southern Baptists) didn't mean the freedom to treat your fellow Americans as 2nd class citizens and try to get the secular law on your side?

 

[bodecea]

No one is forcing celebratory approval.

The issue of Public Accommodation is settled law. If you have a business and you are offering goods and services to the public, you have to offer them to all the businesses you like. you can have a religion. Your business cannot, because it is a public accommodation.

PA violates the 1st Amendment. We now have something to take to SCOTUS. When a law butts heads with the Bill of Rights, it doesn't fare well. Thanks to your side's inbsistences, blacks may be sitting outside lunch counters for awhile until the PA law gets revised so you jackasses can't use it to claim straights have to participate in gay rituals.

I believe that PA laws have been brought up in front of federal courts to determine their Constitutionality. How did that pan out?

 

[jillian]

Well of course. It was a Democrat. a video at the site of the narrow minded far right Clinton signing this

SNIP:
March 26, 2015 By Bill Clinton
Remarks on Signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
November 16, 1993

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for those fine remarks and to the Members of Congress, the chaplains of the House and the Senate, and to all of you who worked so hard to help this day become a reality. Let me especially thank the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion for the central role they played in drafting this legislation and working so hard for its passage.

It is interesting to note, as the Vice President said, what a broad coalition of Americans came together to make this bill a reality; interesting to note that that coalition produced a 97-to3 vote in the United States Senate and a bill that had such broad support it was adopted on a voice vote in the House. I’m told that, as many of the people in the coalition worked together across ideological and religious lines, some new friendships were formed and some new trust was established, which shows, I suppose, that the power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen. [Laughter]


We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom. Usually the signing of legislation by a President is a ministerial act, often a quiet ending to a turbulent legislative process. Today this event assumes a more majestic quality because of our ability together to affirm the historic role that people of faith have played in the history of this country and the constitutional protections those who profess and express their faith have always demanded and cherished.

ALL of it here:
Remember When Democrats Supported Religious Freedom

i realize you don't understand the differences between the clinton bill and the wacko bill signed by pence because they have the same name so they must be the same to the ignoramuses.

 

[bodecea]

It's a growing concern; the only difference between fanatical Christianity and fanatical Islam is usually a sheet and a pointy white hat.

Interesting. The difference is quite noticeable. The difference between Christianity and Islam is:




























(Pause for effect)



































One of them doesn't want to kill you for being a homosexual.

And we should be grateful that you don't go that far.............................?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The Bible says you should kill gays.

The bible also says you should kill women who wear pants or have sex before they are married.

Yet, oddly, we don't see a bunch of bakers insisting on their right to refuse service to pant wearing non-virgins because "Jay-a-zus"!

This is just a case of bigots hiding behind the bible.

"Jay-a-zus" your argument is retarded. How is the baker/shop owner required to participate in the whore's nightly sexual escapades in order to conduct business with her? Now explain how a baker isn't required to serve cake at a gay reception? According to your side, the PA says he must subject himself to what he would call a sin.

Your arguments fall to pieces.