San Francisco mayor bans publicly-funded travel to Indiana in response to "religious freedom" law

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh dear, the CEO of Yelp, Stoppleman is openly gay. No bias here, nothing to see, move on.

Openly homosexual is shoving it in everyone's face what sex they like to hump.

sick and twisted and I'm actually SICK of them

It's their sexual orientation that the rightwing bigots shove in their faces.

How, by having children?

We have children too.

No you don't. One of you has a child, but the two of you together don't have them. That's one of the fundamental laws of nature, honey.

Step-parents don't have children? Parents who adopt don't have children? I'll let the courts know but for a very long time they have held a different opinion, meaning, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, as usual.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Openly homosexual is shoving it in everyone's face what sex they like to hump.

sick and twisted and I'm actually SICK of them

It's their sexual orientation that the rightwing bigots shove in their faces.

How, by having children?

We have children too.

No you don't. One of you has a child, but the two of you together don't have them. That's one of the fundamental laws of nature, honey.

Darwin's dead end

The Laws of Nature no longer apply kiddos. If they did we'd have many men with more than 100 children now, and legally, we don't. Since they weren't made in the old fashioned way, that part doesn't apply either.

 

[bripat9643]

Openly homosexual is shoving it in everyone's face what sex they like to hump.

sick and twisted and I'm actually SICK of them

It's their sexual orientation that the rightwing bigots shove in their faces.

How, by having children?

We have children too.

No you don't. One of you has a child, but the two of you together don't have them. That's one of the fundamental laws of nature, honey.

Step-parents don't have children? Parents who adopt don't have children? I'll let the courts know but for a very long time they have held a different opinion, meaning, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, as usual.

To "have" children means to conceive them, not just have custody of them. So no, step parents didn't "have" the children in their custody. Neither do adoptive parents.

You're just playing the usual infantile liberal words games.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

absurd. Civil liberties don't extend to the privelege of marriage, denied to more than just homosexuals..

This is absurd.

The right to equal protection of the law and the fundamental right to marry is extended to those who are eligible to enter into a marriage contract, such as same-sex couples.

 

[bripat9643]

It's their sexual orientation that the rightwing bigots shove in their faces.

How, by having children?

We have children too.

No you don't. One of you has a child, but the two of you together don't have them. That's one of the fundamental laws of nature, honey.

Darwin's dead end

The Laws of Nature no longer apply kiddos.

"The Laws of Nature no longer apply kiddos."

Now that's funny!

 

[bripat9643]

absurd. Civil liberties don't extend to the privelege of marriage, denied to more than just homosexuals..

This is absurd.

The right to equal protection of the law and the fundamental right to marry is extended to those who are eligible to enter into a marriage contract, such as same-sex couples.

They aren't eligible because the don't have the necessary equipment.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How, by having children?

We have children too.

No you don't. One of you has a child, but the two of you together don't have them. That's one of the fundamental laws of nature, honey.

Darwin's dead end

The Laws of Nature no longer apply kiddos.

"The Laws of Nature no longer apply kiddos."

Now that's funny!

Can't see why it would be, it's true.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

absurd. Civil liberties don't extend to the privelege of marriage, denied to more than just homosexuals..

This is absurd.

The right to equal protection of the law and the fundamental right to marry is extended to those who are eligible to enter into a marriage contract, such as same-sex couples.

They aren't eligible because the don't have the necessary equipment.

Tell us, who should an XY female marry? She looks like a girl, always has, but she can't marry a normal XY male, that would be gay right?

 

[boedicca]

Good for Gov. Pence for respecting Freedom.

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.

Here it is The text of Indiana s religious freedom law

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Good for Gov. Pence for respecting Freedom.

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.

Here it is The text of Indiana s religious freedom law

Still waiting for one of these guys to tell us why this law was necessary if it doesn't allow normal people discriminate based on religious beliefs? I guess that must be what the law is for after all.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Example of the law.
There is a business near where I live, Smokin Jims Barbecue.
The food is outstanding, the people running it are more outstanding.
They have a HUGE grill that can be pulled by a truck, they have on several occasions used proceeds and donations to take this massive grill to areas that have had natural disasters and fed 100's of people and volunteers/police/fire folks...for...wait for it...FREE.
Below is a photo taken by FEMA, in a town that was devastated by a tornado. They stayed there for a whole week serving FREE food to locals trying to clean up.

On the inside of their restaurant is numerous religious paintings/signs etc. Their business cards/menus etc. have crosses and religious statements and Bible verses on them. They have a sign on their door telling people before they come in that this is a business ran by the principles of their religious beliefs.

Now...let's say some neo-nazi group wants to use their banquet hall upstairs in the place, or yes, even some homosexual group wants to hold meetings in their banquet facility (which if they wanted to, it would obviously be just to start trouble) ..and the owners refuse to allow them to hold meetings there. This law protects that right to refuse to allow their business to promote ideas that conflict their beliefs.
NOW - before you go hog crazy (pun intended) - this DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SERVE A GAY COUPLE that came in by themselves to eat. The law DOES NOT protect them from a lawsuit. This would not classify as "substantial hardship" against their beliefs.
BUT - holding meetings within the business to promote said group - would.
The business owners have a right to protect their beliefs if they are "SUBSTANTIALLY" under hardship from the government forcing them to do so.

GET IT????

I doubt it.

 

[boedicca]

Good for Gov. Pence for respecting Freedom.

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.

Here it is The text of Indiana s religious freedom law

Still waiting for one of these guys to tell us why this law was necessary if it doesn't allow normal people discriminate based on religious beliefs? I guess that must be what the law is for after all.

I could just as easily turn this around and say that LBGT people are discriminating against the religious freedom of others by forcing association against their will.

Your freedom stops when it crosses into my personal boundary. The way I read the law is that Freedom of Religion trumps government social engineering as long as LGBTs have alternatives in the market place. i.e., if a minister doesn't want to perform a gay wedding, there are likely plenty of others who would. Forcing said minister to perform a ceremony against his beliefs serves no real public policy purpose that justifies trashing the First Amendment.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For Bripat:

Straight Marriage:

Gay Marriage:

Okay, pick one, the Gay marriage or the Straight marriage?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Publicly funded travel? What is that? Will the mayor stop criminal investigations that extend to Indiana to make a point for his sissie friends? The left is big on banning stuff ain't they? Have they started the book burning yet? Too bad San Fran doesn't ban publicly funded travel into the city.

You obviously didn't read the article, otherwise you wouldn't have exhibited such ignorance.

It's you and others on the right who seek to ban, often in violation of the Constitution: ban same-sex couples from marrying, women from exercising their right to privacy, minorities their right to vote, and immigrants their right to due process.

It's conservatives most likely to burn books, a consequence of their fear of diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Good for Gov. Pence for respecting Freedom.

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.

Here it is The text of Indiana s religious freedom law

Still waiting for one of these guys to tell us why this law was necessary if it doesn't allow normal people discriminate based on religious beliefs? I guess that must be what the law is for after all.

I could just as easily turn this around and say that LBGT people are discriminating against the religious freedom of others by forcing association against their will.

Forced association was decided by the Supreme Court decades ago. They couldn't win using that argument then so you don't have a chance in hell of winning using it now. PA laws simply allow everyone to get on with their day, in peace. If you believe baking wedding cakes for gays is a sin, stop baking wedding cakes. Others will be more than happy for the additional business.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

As soon as you used the term "faggots", your opinion became irrelevant. It just placed you in with all the other gay bashers who believe Jesus hates fags.

Don't care. Not a jesus freak either shit head...not even a damn christian.

No shit. No white supremacists are Christian. None of them.

Noe you're defining who is and isn't a Christian? Who else doesn't make the cut? Gay? Feminists? Protestants?

God is not the author or racism. Satan is, and his most loyal followers are Leftists.

Answer the questions. Who is or isn't a Christian? We are all very interested.

Matthew 13:

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Don't care. Not a jesus freak either shit head...not even a damn christian.

No shit. No white supremacists are Christian. None of them.

Noe you're defining who is and isn't a Christian? Who else doesn't make the cut? Gay? Feminists? Protestants?

God is not the author or racism. Satan is, and his most loyal followers are Leftists.

Answer the questions. Who is or isn't a Christian? We are all very interested.

Matthew 13:

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

Answer the question, Christian. Nothing in there says you can't be a racist.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No shit. No white supremacists are Christian. None of them.

Noe you're defining who is and isn't a Christian? Who else doesn't make the cut? Gay? Feminists? Protestants?

God is not the author or racism. Satan is, and his most loyal followers are Leftists.

Answer the questions. Who is or isn't a Christian? We are all very interested.

Matthew 13:

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

Answer the question, Christian. Nothing in there says you can't be a racist.

Jesus spoke in parables to confound the evil doer.

So do I.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Noe you're defining who is and isn't a Christian? Who else doesn't make the cut? Gay? Feminists? Protestants?

God is not the author or racism. Satan is, and his most loyal followers are Leftists.

Answer the questions. Who is or isn't a Christian? We are all very interested.

Matthew 13:

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

Answer the question, Christian. Nothing in there says you can't be a racist.

Jesus spoke in parables to confound the evil doer.

So do I.

The people he confused were the Jews who rejected him, and his family actually. And it's apparent you can't define what a Christian is so we'll leave it at that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

RE: #133. What's the matter kids, can't you tell a boy from a girl?