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

The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

Interestingly, this is exactly the same argument made about blacks (those damned uppity "Ns"). 'They have their own water cooler, they don't need to drink from ours'. Sadly, bigots can't see themselves being bigots. But everyone else does. Does that make you happy?

What part of "this law does not discriminate" do you not understand?

It most certainly does. Sorry, you are wrong.

He's had it explained to him repeatedly. He's doing that RWnut deny-the-undeniable routine that is standard fare around here.
 
A right or a Liberty doesn't depend on whether someone agrees or approves.

A private business should have the right to serve anyone they want to or not to serve them. They should have that right but they also have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That includes boycotts and loss of business. Certainly they should have the right to not be forced to operate in a manner that conflicts with their religion.

No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

Yeah I'm sure YOU are fine with that but people and states like Indiana are trying to keep us from losing more freedoms.

Sigh... have you read the law? So many people have so many opinions about it but hardly any have actually read it.

Much of it, yes. Have you?
 
You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

I don't agree with that last bit. I think there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from being banned from obtaining goods and services just because of who they are. OTOH, I am not convinced this needs to be all encompassing. I can certainly see that a grocery store should not be allowed to discriminate, or an apartment complex..., but a flower arranger? There should be some rational line if you are going to decide one person's rights are more important than another person's rights. This is not a one sided issue.

A right or a Liberty doesn't depend on whether someone agrees or approves.

A private business should have the right to serve anyone they want to or not to serve them. They should have that right but they also have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That includes boycotts and loss of business. Certainly they should have the right to not be forced to operate in a manner that conflicts with their religion.

No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.
Except in housing.

He should.
 
No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

Yeah I'm sure YOU are fine with that but people and states like Indiana are trying to keep us from losing more freedoms.

Sigh... have you read the law? So many people have so many opinions about it but hardly any have actually read it.

Much of it, yes. Have you?

Much of it? It's only a couple of pages. I read all of it. It took about five minutes. But you only got through "much of it"?

So tell me exactly where in that law does it keep you from losing more freedoms. Post the section of the law you think does that.
 
I have to thank the left....Mike Pence was probably going to run for President....he seems to be a good man and a good governor....but he doesn't have the spine to fight the left....he can't explain this in a way that defeats the left.....we need more Grants and Shermans in the Republican leadership.....we already have too many McClellans.....
 
Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.

PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)
wtf20.gif
thinking.gif
f_whistle.gif
rolleyes21.gif
geez.gif

How is purchasing a cake or a photograph imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout? Do you have any idea how bigoted your statement looks to others? I mean really?

and do you know how fascist your desire to use government to either force a person to comply or crush them makes you look?

Really? You accuse me of being right wing wrt to human rights? Now that's funny.

Fascism is all about using the government to force people to do what "the betters" want them to do. If the left is now more fascist than the right, i'm not surprised.

You really ought to take a history class, because, damn.

Nice non-response there, dick.
 
There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So let me get this straight. It ruins people lives to sell a product to someone they don't like? They are compensated for the product just like any other business transaction. So where is the harm?

The harm is when government can fine the $15,000 a pop when they don't sell said product.

You don;t consider that harm?

People who discriminate against others based on their own bigotry deserve nothing less than a hefty fine.

So basically toss away a person's freedoms due to your proposed moral structure.
 
and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.

and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.

At least be honest about that.

People have a right to their religious freedoms, but those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. Otherwise, a religious business owner could deny services to minorities based on religious "convictions". We saw that in the south for hundreds of years until the civil rights act put a stop to it. The state not only has a right, it has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against human rights violations.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

See, you a problem with that, I see people finally being honest with each other. The market can handle it, government has no business getting involved with something as petty as wedding cakes.

When it came to the South during Jim Crow, the discrimination was systemic, government enforced, and targeted at crucial business services and products used by a large number of people.

Two gays having to go to another baker for a cake, or another photographer for pictures does not elevate to that level.

And with this ridiculous law, it will become systematic, government enforced, and targeted against anyone you religious bigots declare to be offensive to your faith. Wft is it with you people, anyway? Have you joined teams with ISIS, or what?

The law only protects people from government actions brought up by the government or third parties. How does this actually stop a gay couple from getting a cake?

Show me where it allows government to fine people or force them to do something. YOUR side is the one doing that.
 
But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!

and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:

Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE

I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.

As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So you enjoy watching people be lynched?

Argumentum ad abusrdum, the refuge of the lazy twat.

And your side is the one wanting to do the "lynching" here, you just don't see it.
 
Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.

PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)
wtf20.gif
thinking.gif
f_whistle.gif
rolleyes21.gif
geez.gif

How is purchasing a cake or a photograph imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout? Do you have any idea how bigoted your statement looks to others? I mean really?

and do you know how fascist your desire to use government to either force a person to comply or crush them makes you look?

Really? You accuse me of being right wing wrt to human rights? Now that's funny.

Fascism is all about using the government to force people to do what "the betters" want them to do. If the left is now more fascist than the right, i'm not surprised.

That is one of the silliest comments I have read here, and I have read some doozies.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?
 
and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.

and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.

At least be honest about that.

People have a right to their religious freedoms, but those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. Otherwise, a religious business owner could deny services to minorities based on religious "convictions". We saw that in the south for hundreds of years until the civil rights act put a stop to it. The state not only has a right, it has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against human rights violations.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

See, you a problem with that, I see people finally being honest with each other. The market can handle it, government has no business getting involved with something as petty as wedding cakes.

When it came to the South during Jim Crow, the discrimination was systemic, government enforced, and targeted at crucial business services and products used by a large number of people.

Two gays having to go to another baker for a cake, or another photographer for pictures does not elevate to that level.

Now, if only you would be honest. Your position isn't about bakers or photographers. You think grocery stores should be able to turn people away. You think neighborhoods should be segregated. You basically want a return to pre-1950 conditions. You want to allow wholesale discrimination of entire classes and call it freedom. Well, I live in those conditions and it wasn't freedom by any stretch. And if a baker has to bake a cake as a balance of not returning to them, then so be it. If that bugs you, I really don't care.

First of all, don;t assume anything about me you fuck-faced asshat.

2nd, I haven't seen any grocery stores try to refuse selling to anyone, so your slippery slope argument fails on that point.

3rd. You only feel OK sacrificing someone else's rights because you don't agree with their position. That makes you the 2010's equivalent of the Moral Majority assholes from the 1980's. Congratulations.

4th. go fuck yourself you fascist douchebag.
 
I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.

As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So you enjoy watching people be lynched?

Argumentum ad abusrdum, the refuge of the lazy twat.

And your side is the one wanting to do the "lynching" here, you just don't see it.

Yes. That was the point I was making. I'm glad you got it.
 
There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So you enjoy watching people be lynched?

Argumentum ad abusrdum, the refuge of the lazy twat.

And your side is the one wanting to do the "lynching" here, you just don't see it.

Yes. That was the point I was making. I'm glad you got it.

That you are the descendants of Bull Connor, and all those segregationist twats? Yes, I see that.
 
Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So you enjoy watching people be lynched?

Argumentum ad abusrdum, the refuge of the lazy twat.

And your side is the one wanting to do the "lynching" here, you just don't see it.

Yes. That was the point I was making. I'm glad you got it.

That you are the descendants of Bull Connor, and all those segregationist twats? Yes, I see that.

Ahhh... so you didn't get it. Oh well. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. In any case, have a nice flight. I hope you find freedom someplace.
 
Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.

The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom should know what they're talking about. Read their letter.
Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.

PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)
wtf20.gif
thinking.gif
f_whistle.gif
rolleyes21.gif
geez.gif

How is purchasing a cake or a photograph imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout? Do you have any idea how bigoted your statement looks to others? I mean really?
Very simple how it is imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout. They want the cake or photograph to be homosexual. Like with 2 guys shown on the top of the wedding cake, or 2 guys (Ugh!) kissing each other in the photograph. That is having the business person participate in the sick perversion.

As for how it looks, it looks perfectly correct and not bigoted in any way. It is merely a reflection of the normal meeting the abnormal. I mean really.

First of all, you have no right to determine what is normal and what is abnormal for the rest of us. Who the hell do you think you are?

Secondly, Two adults showing their love for one another is a perversion? No sir, it is not. What is a perversion is the utter hatred and bigotry expressed by people such as yourself who apparently believe an expression of love between two consenting adults should be shunned in society. What is a perversion is to support discrimination against someone different from you in the name of your religion. And you people call yourselves Christians? There is nothing Christian about your attitude towards others. It is an attitude of intolerance that belongs in the 14th century, not the 21st. I would expect this of ISIS, not of Christian Americans. And so the question becomes what is it with you fundamentalist "Christians" and sex? Not getting enough at home so you have to play the bully to those who do? Get over yourselves already.

anne-hathaway-full.jpg
Of course I have a right to determine what is normal and what is abnormal for the rest of us. And who I am is one part of the American people. And who has the right to determine for ourselves what we define as normal and abnormal, and what should and shouldn't be done, is we the people.

Two adults OF THE SAME SEX engaging in a sex act (that includes kissing on the lips) is ABNORMAL. These idiocies and aberrations should absolutely be discriminated against, especially to keep children from falling prey to them. Intolerance of this aberrated behavior belongs in any century. And I am a Christian, but this plays no part in my view about queers. I simply recognize the obvious, which is that this is an absurdly abnormal behavior practiced by sex perverts, who should not be doing it, let alone involving others, and I resent the BS that these loons try to pass that their perversion is normal. It's about as normal as a fish running a marathon race on land.

And Ann Hathaway's statement is flat wrong. Homosexuality has nothing to do with love or decency. It is just a stupid, ridiculous, wrongheaded activity by fools who think they can snow everyone into accepting their lunacy. Ann would be better off to stick to making movies (in the heterosexual mode), and skip the politics.
 
Last edited:
Indiana’s Anti-Gay ‘Religious Freedom’ Law Ushers In First Church Of Cannabis

An enterprising Indiana marketing consultant has opened up the First Church Of Cannabis, thanks to anti-gay Hoosier lawmakers.

It's pretty clear that when anti-gay lawmakers and anti-gay lobbyists drafted and passed the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) they intended it to be used as a license to discriminate against the LGBT community. But the law, which GOP Governor Mike Pencesigned last Thursday, has already had at least one unintended consequence.

Because the language is so wide reaching and poorly-written, one Indiana libertarian marketing consultant has already filed for and received from the Indiana Secretary of State a license for the First Church Of Cannabis.

Bill Levin, whose Facebook page says he believes God "is A Good Thing," says he sees his attempts to legalize marijuana as a "crusade."

Levin is also the founder of the First Church Of Cannabis. On the Church's Facebook page, the announcement reads:

THE FIRST CHURCH OF CANNABIS INC. - Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana - "Congratulations your registration has been approved!"​

Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love,Understanding and Good Health.

The Raw Story reports that Indiana attorney and political commentator Abdul-Hakim Shabazz says at Indy Politics, "I would argue that under RFRA, as long as you can show that reefer is part of your religious practices, you got a pretty good shot of getting off scot-free."

More: Indiana's Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Law Ushers In First Church Of Cannabis - The New Civil Rights Movement

Another law of unintended consequences.
Yep, that's pretty much where these kinds of laws take us. Universal, individual rights are giving way to group privilege.
Business owners are a "group" too.

You don't have a clue what I'm talking about, do you?
One could say I don't CARE what you're talking about. And they'd be right.
 
The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

Interestingly, this is exactly the same argument made about blacks in the south60 years ago (those damned uppity "Ns"). 'They have their own water cooler, they don't need to drink from ours'. Sadly, bigots can't see themselves being bigots. But everyone else does. Does that make you happy?
Comparing discrimination against gays with discrimination against Blacks is ludicrous. First, Blacks didn't choose to be Black. Gays do choose to be gay. Secondly, being Black is, in itself, not harmful to society. Being gay is.

Third, if a Black guy walks into a place to apply for a job, everyone can see he's Black. But no one knows if a gay guy is gay, unless that gay guy chooses to make it known. So it is only those gays who flaunt their illness, and push it in everyone's face, that have a problem. Message for gays: Don't do that.
 
The cake is a lie. If you love someone, good for you. If you love your cat, great. Nobody here in America is going to threaten you or hurt you. But if we don't want to sell you wedding flowers or a cake or do wedding photos, man up. Go somewhere else...hint hint. AND, remarkably, here is a business opportunity. Businesses that cater to gays. Put up and shut up. Enough of the homosexual whining. Those that can. DO, those that can't just bitch. And protest...

Interestingly, this is exactly the same argument made about blacks (those damned uppity "Ns"). 'They have their own water cooler, they don't need to drink from ours'. Sadly, bigots can't see themselves being bigots. But everyone else does. Does that make you happy?

What part of "this law does not discriminate" do you not understand?

It most certainly does. Sorry, you are wrong.
And if it didn't, then there would be discrimination against the Christians who don't want to be forced to do what they feel are unChristian things. So is the discrimination against them less important than a discrimination against gays ?
 
It's amazing what people will accept under the guise of legality. Nobody can be deprived of essentials. Due process or basic utilities or housing. But frivolous shit like dresses, cakes or WHO CARES? If A business doesn't want to provide that service, for what ever reason, that is up to THEM. If they want to cater to a certain group, what is the big problem? isn't this all about freedom anyway? Not the dictates of what ever group, period. Get over it.

The only reason you can't be deprived of essentials is because it is against the law. So we have established you believe the state has the obligation to prevent discrimination and we are just talking about degree. Understand that I am not disagreeing with you. I consider this concept of "all or nothing" to be absurd. At some point we have to ask "where is the harm?" If there is none or minimal, then there is no compelling reason for the state to intercede.
There is no obligation for the state to prevent discrimination, and there is an obligation for the state to mandate discrimination against gays, to protect everyone from their sickening perversion.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top