Will Republicans ever learn? Indiana governor to sign bill allowing business not to serve gays

It is amazing how ignorant all you liberals are about the law itself.....How is this law discriminative?????????????? It isn't it. It just says a person of religion has the right to have his day in court if he is being forced or discriminated against to do something against his religious belief... Levin said made a analogy that was spot on.....Would all you liberals be okay with forcing a Orthodox Jew OBGYN doctor in performing abortions without having his day in court? Or a Muslim restaurant from being forced to serve bacon without their day in court? Instead all you idiots keep spouting the same nonsense you hear on TV without even knowing the facts......READ THE LAW YOU FOOLS!
Did that: The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act An Analysis of Its Controversy IN Advance

Bad law, easily abused and poorly written.
Then Clinton with Kennedy and Schummer made bad law............. You are so fucking ignorant it is frighting....Please dont breed.
If you read the link provided, you didn't obviously, you'd have seen how very different these laws were in this case. Next time take your own advice and don't parrot right-wing dogma from Fox and Pence.
 
It is amazing how ignorant all you liberals are about the law itself.....How is this law discriminative?????????????? It isn't it. It just says a person of religion has the right to have his day in court if he is being forced or discriminated against to do something against his religious belief... Levin said made a analogy that was spot on.....Would all you liberals be okay with forcing a Orthodox Jew OBGYN doctor in performing abortions without having his day in court? Or a Muslim restaurant from being forced to serve bacon without their day in court? Instead all you idiots keep spouting the same nonsense you hear on TV without even knowing the facts......READ THE LAW YOU FOOLS!
Did that: The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act An Analysis of Its Controversy IN Advance

Bad law, easily abused and poorly written.
Then Clinton with Kennedy and Schummer made bad law............. You are so fucking ignorant it is frighting....Please dont breed.
If you read the link provided, you didn't obviously, you'd have seen how very different these laws were in this case. Next time take your own advice and don't parrot right-wing dogma from Fox and Pence.
I have read the law you fucking dummy. I dont need to a idiot that lies to tell me what I have read.
 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. All the rhetoric of "the government shall not" that is contained in the Bill of Rights. If a Black man owns a business and he chooses not to serve Whites...that's his call and same with a White owner and Blacks. Now bear in mind you will lose that revenue and possibly your capital investment. If you serve all the people then you will have more business and more revenue. that's just simple economics.

So how come it has passed constitutional muster more than once?
Misinterpretation of the law by the Court.
 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. All the rhetoric of "the government shall not" that is contained in the Bill of Rights. If a Black man owns a business and he chooses not to serve Whites...that's his call and same with a White owner and Blacks. Now bear in mind you will lose that revenue and possibly your capital investment. If you serve all the people then you will have more business and more revenue. that's just simple economics.

So how come it has passed constitutional muster more than once?

It was approved by the court because SC judges are hand picked stooges who do what their benefactors put them on the court to do, especially in the case of libturd judges. The idea that any legal principle is involved is pure sophistry.
 
Last edited:
You and your ilk think government gets to decide who businesses must serve, not the supporters of the Indiana law.

The supporters of the law met in private with Pence to sign the abomination because they are a gaggle of nut bags....and if the public saw them they would go "duuude"

How does that disprove what I posted?
because the law represents not "we the people" but special interests including nut bag fundamentalist Christians....there are Christian groups opposed to this crazy shit...
We can all read the plain text of the law. Who wrote it does not determine whether it serves "we the people." Furthermore, the function of law is to protect your individual rights, and you have no right to be served by anyone.
 
So how come it has passed constitutional muster more than once?

The same reason slavery did.

Dred Scott was the law of the land - so it must have been right - yes?

Have you ever read the 14th Amendment? I'm sure you have not, leftists are repulsed by the Constitution. But log on the Soros hate site that you generally go to to be programmed, and ask a handler to download your thoughts on the 14th to you. Then see if you can identify WHO the provision provides protection from?

Hint: It is the same actor that the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th provide protection from.
If you keep pestering her with logic her head will explode.
 
So queers aren't a special interest? It's the opposition to the law that represents a special interest.


They are my fellow Americans ..........no its the group of huddled together weirdos and lobbyists in the picture who are "special interests"

So Christians aren't your fellow Americans? That unintentionally exposed your true attitude. It's not a pretty sight.
 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. All the rhetoric of "the government shall not" that is contained in the Bill of Rights. If a Black man owns a business and he chooses not to serve Whites...that's his call and same with a White owner and Blacks. Now bear in mind you will lose that revenue and possibly your capital investment. If you serve all the people then you will have more business and more revenue. that's just simple economics.

So how come it has passed constitutional muster more than once?

It was approved by the court because SC judges are hand picked stooges who do what their benefactors put them on the court to do, especially in the case of libturd judges. The idea that any legal principle is involved is pure sophistry.

Our Supreme Court is a conservative court. Just because they don't believe in anarchy like you do is not a reflection on the court
 
The bottom line: government enforced Jim Crow. It was the result of private businesses being allowed to make their own choices about who to serve.

Bottom line is the Government did not do this in a vacuum by itself...it did that on behalf of minds like yours that figure you are special and entitled and superior ...that was what Jim crow was for to give aid and comfort to creatures of contempt like you...

The bottom line is that government did exactly what you want to do to Christians: use force against them to determine who they must serve. It was the result of your ideals, not mine.

However, it's cute how you are trying so desperately to blame me and private business for Jim Crow.
 
Last edited:
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. All the rhetoric of "the government shall not" that is contained in the Bill of Rights. If a Black man owns a business and he chooses not to serve Whites...that's his call and same with a White owner and Blacks. Now bear in mind you will lose that revenue and possibly your capital investment. If you serve all the people then you will have more business and more revenue. that's just simple economics.

So how come it has passed constitutional muster more than once?

It was approved by the court because SC judges are hand picked stooges who do what their benefactors put them on the court to do, especially in the case of libturd judges. The idea that any legal principle is involved is pure sophistry.

Our Supreme Court is a conservative court. Just because they don't believe in anarchy like you do is not a reflection on the court

It doesn't make any difference what their political orientation is, they make decisions based on their politics, not on any objective legal principles.
 

Forum List

Back
Top