What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different? Mostly TWO Provisions!

[protectionist]

When Affirmative Action is banned in all 50 states (presently banned in only 8), then we will have equality civil rights. Until then, White people will continue to be discriminated against, as they have been for 51 years. NO other group really has much of any civil rights problem.
As for gays, they should be discriminated against for jobs in teaching, counseling, coaching, politics, clergy, and any job involving decision making for the public and being around children. The primary objective is PROTECTION of the public, not support for sex perversion.

^^^^^^
Feel the hate, people.

It isn't "hate". It is protectionism. And the reason why you call it "hate" is to try to villainize those whom you disagree with, because you're incapable of standing up to the truth, and debating it fair and square. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
PS - I have seen some real hate in this thread. It is from gay supporters, who hate Christians (to the point of mocking Jesus in their avatar)

Who or what, may I ask, do you believe you are protecting? Your right to be a bigot? What gives you that right?

I am protecting Christians and all the American people from the queer facists who are fighting against these RFRA laws, and who have demanded the amendments to it, which then discriminate against Christians and normal people. You can forget your stupid bigot card. You are being an anti-Christian bigot/hypocrite.
As for rights, ALL Americans have the right to speak out for what they believe, didn't you know ? The Constitution gives that right.

Did you ask these Christians and Americans if they, in fact, needed your protection, or did you take it upon yourself to impose your "protection" without their consent?

You lose again. Another dumb post with a very wrong approach.. Pence and Hutchinson didn't get elected by gays. They got elected by conservatives who sympathize with the Christians. As for "consent A

 

[orogenicman]

If it can't then it is NOT an RFRA law at all. Either gays or Christians must be discriminated against. Both cannot be accomodated. If the Indiana governor has chosen to accomodate gays, then he has also chosen to discriminate (very seriously) against Christians, and will forever be known as one of the biggest cowards (and fool) ever to be a governor in America.

Not true. Christians are well within their rights to intolerance with regard to gays (or birds, or chirping antelopes), (there are, after all, over 400,000 churches, synagogues, temples, and monasteries exist from which they can espouse their hatred). But when that hatred extends to the public sector, that's where their right to intolerance stops.

This post (# 188) is completely refuted by the post that it responded to (Post # 186). And your post is extremely stupid. Intolerance certainly does NOT stop at the public sector. Thousands of laws on the books in America are intolerance of various behaviors in the public sector (ex murder, robbery, arson, rape, reckless driving, etc), and people are arrested for these every day. Get some sleep.

So you will be trying to use obfuscation as a legitimate response? Good luck with that.

 

[orogenicman]

^^^^^^
Feel the hate, people.

It isn't "hate". It is protectionism. And the reason why you call it "hate" is to try to villainize those whom you disagree with, because you're incapable of standing up to the truth, and debating it fair and square. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
PS - I have seen some real hate in this thread. It is from gay supporters, who hate Christians (to the point of mocking Jesus in their avatar)

Who or what, may I ask, do you believe you are protecting? Your right to be a bigot? What gives you that right?

I am protecting Christians and all the American people from the queer facists who are fighting against these RFRA laws, and who have demanded the amendments to it, which then discriminate against Christians and normal people. You can forget your stupid bigot card. You are being an anti-Christian bigot/hypocrite.
As for rights, ALL Americans have the right to speak out for what they believe, didn't you know ? The Constitution gives that right.

Did you ask these Christians and Americans if they, in fact, needed your protection, or did you take it upon yourself to impose your "protection" without their consent?

You lose again. Another dumb post with a very wrong approach.. Pence and Hutchinson didn't get elected by gays. They got elected by conservatives who sympathize with the Christians. As for "consent A

And you know that gays didn't vote for him, how? And even if gays didn't vote for them, so what? They are the governor of Indiana and Arkansas, and as such, are supposed to represent ALL citizens in their respective states. But you didn't answer my question, did you?

 

[protectionist]

Mike Pence tried putting some lipstick on his bigot pig - but it's still a bigot pig.

He's a bigot pig > FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS (by allowing gays to bully them into providing them gay services)

 

[protectionist]

If it can't then it is NOT an RFRA law at all. Either gays or Christians must be discriminated against. Both cannot be accomodated. If the Indiana governor has chosen to accomodate gays, then he has also chosen to discriminate (very seriously) against Christians, and will forever be known as one of the biggest cowards (and fool) ever to be a governor in America.

Not true. Christians are well within their rights to intolerance with regard to gays (or birds, or chirping antelopes), (there are, after all, over 400,000 churches, synagogues, temples, and monasteries exist from which they can espouse their hatred). But when that hatred extends to the public sector, that's where their right to intolerance stops.

This post (# 188) is completely refuted by the post that it responded to (Post # 186). And your post is extremely stupid. Intolerance certainly does NOT stop at the public sector. Thousands of laws on the books in America are intolerance of various behaviors in the public sector (ex murder, robbery, arson, rape, reckless driving, etc), and people are arrested for these every day. Get some sleep.

So you will be trying to use obfuscation as a legitimate response? Good luck with that.

I see no obfuscation (and neither do you)

 

[protectionist]

It isn't "hate". It is protectionism. And the reason why you call it "hate" is to try to villainize those whom you disagree with, because you're incapable of standing up to the truth, and debating it fair and square. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
PS - I have seen some real hate in this thread. It is from gay supporters, who hate Christians (to the point of mocking Jesus in their avatar)

Who or what, may I ask, do you believe you are protecting? Your right to be a bigot? What gives you that right?

I am protecting Christians and all the American people from the queer facists who are fighting against these RFRA laws, and who have demanded the amendments to it, which then discriminate against Christians and normal people. You can forget your stupid bigot card. You are being an anti-Christian bigot/hypocrite.
As for rights, ALL Americans have the right to speak out for what they believe, didn't you know ? The Constitution gives that right.

Did you ask these Christians and Americans if they, in fact, needed your protection, or did you take it upon yourself to impose your "protection" without their consent?

You lose again. Another dumb post with a very wrong approach.. Pence and Hutchinson didn't get elected by gays. They got elected by conservatives who sympathize with the Christians. As for "consent A

And you know that gays didn't vote for him, how? And even if gays didn't vote for them, so what? They are the governor of Indiana and Arkansas, and as such, are supposed to represent ALL citizens in their respective states. But you didn't answer my question, did you?

ALL citizens include Christians. Like all the other gay supporters, you are dealing with only discrimination against gays, as if the discrimination against the Christians didn't even exist. You turn a blind eye to that. Your position is FALSE and INVALID.

 

[orogenicman]

Who or what, may I ask, do you believe you are protecting? Your right to be a bigot? What gives you that right?

I am protecting Christians and all the American people from the queer facists who are fighting against these RFRA laws, and who have demanded the amendments to it, which then discriminate against Christians and normal people. You can forget your stupid bigot card. You are being an anti-Christian bigot/hypocrite.
As for rights, ALL Americans have the right to speak out for what they believe, didn't you know ? The Constitution gives that right.

Did you ask these Christians and Americans if they, in fact, needed your protection, or did you take it upon yourself to impose your "protection" without their consent?

You lose again. Another dumb post with a very wrong approach.. Pence and Hutchinson didn't get elected by gays. They got elected by conservatives who sympathize with the Christians. As for "consent A

And you know that gays didn't vote for him, how? And even if gays didn't vote for them, so what? They are the governor of Indiana and Arkansas, and as such, are supposed to represent ALL citizens in their respective states. But you didn't answer my question, did you?

ALL citizens include Christians. Like all the other gay supporters, you are dealing with only discrimination against gays, as if the discrimination against the Christians didn't even exist. You turn a blind eye to that. Your position is FALSE and INVALID.

Yes Christians are included in "all citizens". But it is clear that the government is NOT obligated to support bigotry regardless of who is the perpetrator.

 

[protectionist]

I am protecting Christians and all the American people from the queer facists who are fighting against these RFRA laws, and who have demanded the amendments to it, which then discriminate against Christians and normal people. You can forget your stupid bigot card. You are being an anti-Christian bigot/hypocrite.
As for rights, ALL Americans have the right to speak out for what they believe, didn't you know ? The Constitution gives that right.

Did you ask these Christians and Americans if they, in fact, needed your protection, or did you take it upon yourself to impose your "protection" without their consent?

You lose again. Another dumb post with a very wrong approach.. Pence and Hutchinson didn't get elected by gays. They got elected by conservatives who sympathize with the Christians. As for "consent A

And you know that gays didn't vote for him, how? And even if gays didn't vote for them, so what? They are the governor of Indiana and Arkansas, and as such, are supposed to represent ALL citizens in their respective states. But you didn't answer my question, did you?

ALL citizens include Christians. Like all the other gay supporters, you are dealing with only discrimination against gays, as if the discrimination against the Christians didn't even exist. You turn a blind eye to that. Your position is FALSE and INVALID.

Yes Christians are included in "all citizens". But it is clear that the government is NOT obligated to support bigotry regardless of who is the perpetrator.

Of course it's not obligated to do that. But that is just what it's doing,, in supporting the gays, in complete bigotry against Christians.

 

[PratchettFan]

It isn't "hate". It is protectionism. And the reason why you call it "hate" is to try to villainize those whom you disagree with, because you're incapable of standing up to the truth, and debating it fair and square. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
PS - I have seen some real hate in this thread. It is from gay supporters, who hate Christians (to the point of mocking Jesus in their avatar)

Who or what, may I ask, do you believe you are protecting? Your right to be a bigot? What gives you that right?

The first amendment.

The 1st amendment protects the religious rights of individuals. It does not protect the religious rights of businesses because they are not people. And more to the point, it does not give businesses free reign to discriminate. The fact that both the Indiana and Arkansas governors have pulled back and reconsidered this issue is a good thing for all involved.

That is not the question you asked.

Erm, what?

You asked what gives someone the right to be a bigot. I told you. You, for example, assume anyone who doesn't want to serve a SSM wedding must be a bigot without any information on that person. The definition of a bigot is: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. So your position is, by definition, bigoted. But you have the right to be a bigot under the first amendment.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

 

[Slyhunter]

If I'm a Darwinist does that mean I don't have to provide handicap parking or sidewalks since it violates my religion to support those who can't support themselves?

 

[PratchettFan]

If I'm a Darwinist does that mean I don't have to provide handicap parking or sidewalks since it violates my religion to support those who can't support themselves?

No, it doesn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If I'm a Darwinist does that mean I don't have to provide handicap parking or sidewalks since it violates my religion to support those who can't support themselves?

This forum should provide a handicapped area for your posts.

 

[orogenicman]

Did you ask these Christians and Americans if they, in fact, needed your protection, or did you take it upon yourself to impose your "protection" without their consent?

You lose again. Another dumb post with a very wrong approach.. Pence and Hutchinson didn't get elected by gays. They got elected by conservatives who sympathize with the Christians. As for "consent A

And you know that gays didn't vote for him, how? And even if gays didn't vote for them, so what? They are the governor of Indiana and Arkansas, and as such, are supposed to represent ALL citizens in their respective states. But you didn't answer my question, did you?

ALL citizens include Christians. Like all the other gay supporters, you are dealing with only discrimination against gays, as if the discrimination against the Christians didn't even exist. You turn a blind eye to that. Your position is FALSE and INVALID.

Yes Christians are included in "all citizens". But it is clear that the government is NOT obligated to support bigotry regardless of who is the perpetrator.

Of course it's not obligated to do that. But that is just what it's doing,, in supporting the gays, in complete bigotry against Christians.

Nutz.

 

[orogenicman]

Who or what, may I ask, do you believe you are protecting? Your right to be a bigot? What gives you that right?

The first amendment.

The 1st amendment protects the religious rights of individuals. It does not protect the religious rights of businesses because they are not people. And more to the point, it does not give businesses free reign to discriminate. The fact that both the Indiana and Arkansas governors have pulled back and reconsidered this issue is a good thing for all involved.

That is not the question you asked.

Erm, what?

You asked what gives someone the right to be a bigot. I told you. You, for example, assume anyone who doesn't want to serve a SSM wedding must be a bigot without any information on that person. The definition of a bigot is: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. So your position is, by definition, bigoted. But you have the right to be a bigot under the first amendment.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

The first amendment gives you the right of freedom of speech, and the right to worship your god without government interference. Discriminating against gays (or anyone else) in commerce doesn't count as a religious right no matter what you believe. Neither a bakery nor a pizzeria is a place of worship. They are commercial enterprises that must obey the friggin law.

 

[PratchettFan]

The first amendment.

The 1st amendment protects the religious rights of individuals. It does not protect the religious rights of businesses because they are not people. And more to the point, it does not give businesses free reign to discriminate. The fact that both the Indiana and Arkansas governors have pulled back and reconsidered this issue is a good thing for all involved.

That is not the question you asked.

Erm, what?

You asked what gives someone the right to be a bigot. I told you. You, for example, assume anyone who doesn't want to serve a SSM wedding must be a bigot without any information on that person. The definition of a bigot is: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. So your position is, by definition, bigoted. But you have the right to be a bigot under the first amendment.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

The first amendment gives you the right of freedom of speech, and the right to worship your god without government interference. Discriminating against gays (or anyone else) in commerce doesn't count as a religious right no matter what you believe. Neither a bakery nor a pizzeria is a place of worship. They are commercial enterprises that must obey the friggin law.

Again, not what you asked.

The state has a compelling interest to prevent discrimination because we need not look all that far back in our history to see the results of it. Anti-discrimination laws did not just suddenly appear from a vacuum. However, just as in the freedom of speech, it is not an unlimited interest. There really should be a rational reason to justify calling something a compelling interest. I have a lot of trouble seeing a cake as a necessity of life that creates such an interest. However, if a state considers it as such and the courts agree, then that is the law and the law applies to everyone equally.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Thought he'd at least use a different source. Ah well, they say imitation's the highest form of flattery.

 

[protectionist]

Politicians need to stop pandering to minority groups (like gays) at the expense of (and discriminating against) the great majority (80% of Americans are Christians)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Politicians need to stop pandering to minority groups (like gays) at the expense of (and discriminating against) the great majority (80% of Americans are Christians)

You want Mob Rule here eh? A shame, the Founders didn't.

 

[protectionist]

Politicians need to stop pandering to minority groups (like gays) at the expense of (and discriminating against) the great majority (80% of Americans are Christians)

You want Mob Rule here eh? A shame, the Founders didn't.

You want to talk about "Mob Rule" ? No problem. Here it is - in living color >>>

 

[PratchettFan]

Politicians need to stop pandering to minority groups (like gays) at the expense of (and discriminating against) the great majority (80% of Americans are Christians)

You want Mob Rule here eh? A shame, the Founders didn't.

You want to talk about "Mob Rule" ? No problem. Here it is - in living color >>>

No. Those are pictures of citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assembly. You think we should trash the first amendment?