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

[guno]

Come on Republicans

I know you love to pander to your gay hating base. But are you ever going to learn?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is ready to sign into law a bill allowing businesses to refuse service to gays for "religious reasons" . All this ten days before the NCAA Final Four comes to Indianapolis. So what was once an opportunity to show the country what a great location his state is for major events, now becomes a poster child for "We hate gays".
See how many Final Fours come back to Indianapolis. Superbowl? Forget it Mike

But at least you got to score points with your gay hating base

Republicans just can't help themselves.






Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

The white christian party cries that they are being persecuted for their religion, and yet pass laws to making it OK discriminate against another group

 

[2aguy]

Liberty, the conservative watchword, always seems to get applied as a liberty to deny others rights.

Weird.

Liberty, as defined by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights...I know...those only apply when the left wants them to and otherwise they shouldn't exist.....but actual freedom means that if you have religious objections to an action....you have a right to not engage in that action in your private life......even in a business that is your private property...I know...rights....freedom......religion......the left is unfamiliar with those things...just trust us on this one....

 

[OKTexas]

And if businesses in Indiana openly or underhandedly maintain a position that they will not do business with gays, other people and other businesses will choose not to do business in Indiana

So those wishing to hold a convention will choose venues in other states. Sports leagues will choose other locations for major events

It works both ways

I understand it works both ways, it's your side that thinks it doesn't and wish to force your values on others. But as more and more states adopt similar laws to protect their religious majorities from state sponsored violations of the 1st Amendment, then people who agree with them will seek to do business with them. People are getting fed up with radical liberalism and radical atheist.

Making bigotry a religion is hardly what America is about.

Yet the persecution of the religious majority is a staple of the religion of radical liberalism and radical atheist, but that's ok because it's your side doing it, right?

In order to fulfill your beliefs we would have to bring back the right of businesses to refuse to serve anyone they didn't like.

That's why a biz should be forced to identify before hand what group they won't serve. Eventually they would either be bankrupted or driven into the underground economy because Wal-Mart or Amazon will destroy them.

Oh boy, another one who wants to take away freedom by force, good job commiecrat, good job.

 

[bripat9643]

The religious freedom law has absolutely nothing to do with gays any more than similar laws in 30 other states do.

A law professor's take on it:

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks. . . .
Law professor Why Indiana needs religious freedom legislation​

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.
I say.....bullshit

Prior to same sex marriages, we never had a need for such legislation. Indiana, seeing same sex marriage becoming the law of the land in June is trying to pre-empt the rights of gays to marry

I suspect the law will be narrowly enforced and that fundamentalist christians nt Muslims will be the prime beneficiaries

Well I'll leave it to you and the law professor to work out where the bullshit is.

I may not be a law professor, but I do watch Judge Judy every day


Thats good enough for USMB

That appears to be the extent of your legal knowledge.

It more than qualifies me to discuss legal matters on USMB

You aren't qualified to discuss legal matters on teletubbies.

And if businesses in Indiana openly or underhandedly maintain a position that they will not do business with gays, other people and other businesses will choose not to do business in Indiana

So those wishing to hold a convention will choose venues in other states. Sports leagues will choose other locations for major events

It works both ways

I understand it works both ways, it's your side that thinks it doesn't and wish to force your values on others. But as more and more states adopt similar laws to protect their religious majorities from state sponsored violations of the 1st Amendment, then people who agree with them will seek to do business with them. People are getting fed up with radical liberalism and radical atheist.

Making bigotry a religion is hardly what America is about.

Yet the persecution of the religious majority is a staple of the religion of radical liberalism and radical atheist, but that's ok because it's your side doing it, right?

In order to fulfill your beliefs we would have to bring back the right of businesses to refuse to serve anyone they didn't like.

That's why a biz should be forced to identify before hand what group they won't serve. Eventually they would either be bankrupted or driven into the underground economy because Wal-Mart or Amazon will destroy them.

That's precisely why they shouldn't be forced to identify.

 

[rightwinger]

Come on Republicans

I know you love to pander to your gay hating base. But are you ever going to learn?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is ready to sign into law a bill allowing businesses to refuse service to gays for "religious reasons" . All this ten days before the NCAA Final Four comes to Indianapolis. So what was once an opportunity to show the country what a great location his state is for major events, now becomes a poster child for "We hate gays".
See how many Final Fours come back to Indianapolis. Superbowl? Forget it Mike

But at least you got to score points with your gay hating base

Republicans just can't help themselves.






Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

The white christian party cries that they are being persecuted for their religion, and yet pass laws to making it OK discriminate against another group

They are screaming for the right of their religion to persecute others

 

[LoneLaugher]

You nuts chose your religion. You choose to interpret your bible in weird ways. You choose to discriminate against others. You have nothing but choices.

Someday..... you will be put out or put upon by someone claiming to be excersing their "religious freedom" to discriminate against you. I hope it fucks up your day when it happens. Ya freaks.

 

[RKMBrown]

I honestly believe most Republicans have seen the light on gay rights

We're not speaking of Republicans, we're speaking of Americans; which is to say those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America... OKA: Natural Principles.

Admit it....you have lost
Gay Marriage will be the law of the land by June

An no, Americans do not support you

Most Republicans have given up on the issue and just wish it would go away. It makes them lose votes and credibility with younger voters

Nice projection there. So when the democrats changed their mind and began voting for gay marriage it was only because they were loosing votes and credibility? Or did the democrats vote against gay marriage in the past because otherwise they would loose votes and credibility?

 

[Foxfyre]

There ya go again, trying to compare the homo's situation to the black's plight. Not even comparable

We aren't comparing blacks to gays...we're comparing bigots to bigots.

That's funny when the majority of blacks in California voted in favor of Proposition #8.

You have figures to back that up?

Let me help get you going.

How many blacks in California?
How many blacks are registered to vote in California?
How many blacks registered to vote actually voted in California?
How many blacks registered to vote in California voted yes on Prop H8?
And how do you know how black people voted?

WAPO seems to think they know how black people voted in California. But of course Prop 8 was passed in 2008 when President Obama also opposed same sex marriage.

. . .Los Angeles County -- the state's most populous -- is particularly interesting to look at. In LA County, Prop. 8 won a narrow majority of 50.1 percent. But, President Obama carried the county with a whopping 69 percent.

The discrepancy? African American voters, who were overwhelmingly in favor of banning same sex marriage (70 percent supported Proposition 8) even as they supported Obama even more heavily (94 percent). And, to a lesser degree, Hispanic voters followed that same trend -- backing Prop. 8 by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin while giving President Obama 74 percent. . .
How Proposition 8 passed in California and why it wouldn t today - The Washington Post​

And of course now the polls indicate the vote would have gone differently, but President Obama reversed his opinion about same-sex marriage once he was safely in office. Did that make the difference. Who knows? Who cares?

The point with the vote in Indiana is not an issue of same-sex marriage--court after court has ruled against discrimination against same-sex marriage whether or not it is the right thing to do. The law is not a license to discriminate any more than the law in those 29 other states is a license to discriminate. Indiana's law is not substantially different from any of those others.

It is almost like the backlash against the Indiana law is strictly from progressive activists who don't want any restrictions put on their ability to bash Christians or other religious for following or stating their faith.

At any rate it is much ado about pretty much nothing, and is bringing out the bigoted and silly more than anything else.

How many black people in CA?

How many black people are registered to vote?

How many black people who are registered to vote actually voted?

How many black people who are registered to vote and actually voted voted yes on Prop H8?

Doesn't matter. If they didn't vote we can conclude they just didn't give a damn one way or the other, right? And probably wouldn't have made an informed vote had they voted.

So we're stuck with those who did vote. And the statistics on that are pretty conclusive about what the attitudes were at the time the vote was taken.

 

[Seawytch]

I understand it works both ways, it's your side that thinks it doesn't and wish to force your values on others. But as more and more states adopt similar laws to protect their religious majorities from state sponsored violations of the 1st Amendment, then people who agree with them will seek to do business with them. People are getting fed up with radical liberalism and radical atheist.

Making bigotry a religion is hardly what America is about.

Yet the persecution of the religious majority is a staple of the religion of radical liberalism and radical atheist, but that's ok because it's your side doing it, right?

In order to fulfill your beliefs we would have to bring back the right of businesses to refuse to serve anyone they didn't like.

That's why a biz should be forced to identify before hand what group they won't serve. Eventually they would either be bankrupted or driven into the underground economy because Wal-Mart or Amazon will destroy them.

Oh boy, another one who wants to take away freedom by force, good job commiecrat, good job.

How is requiring a business to identity that they will refuse to serve me taking away their "freedoms"?

 

[bendog]

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.
I say.....bullshit

Prior to same sex marriages, we never had a need for such legislation. Indiana, seeing same sex marriage becoming the law of the land in June is trying to pre-empt the rights of gays to marry

I suspect the law will be narrowly enforced and that fundamentalist christians nt Muslims will be the prime beneficiaries

Well I'll leave it to you and the law professor to work out where the bullshit is.

I may not be a law professor, but I do watch Judge Judy every day


Thats good enough for USMB

That appears to be the extent of your legal knowledge.

It more than qualifies me to discuss legal matters on USMB

You aren't qualified to discuss legal matters on teletubbies.

I understand it works both ways, it's your side that thinks it doesn't and wish to force your values on others. But as more and more states adopt similar laws to protect their religious majorities from state sponsored violations of the 1st Amendment, then people who agree with them will seek to do business with them. People are getting fed up with radical liberalism and radical atheist.

Making bigotry a religion is hardly what America is about.

Yet the persecution of the religious majority is a staple of the religion of radical liberalism and radical atheist, but that's ok because it's your side doing it, right?

In order to fulfill your beliefs we would have to bring back the right of businesses to refuse to serve anyone they didn't like.

That's why a biz should be forced to identify before hand what group they won't serve. Eventually they would either be bankrupted or driven into the underground economy because Wal-Mart or Amazon will destroy them.

That's precisely why they shouldn't be forced to identify.

They shouldn't be allowed to advertise they provide a service, if they have no intention of providing that to someone. They don't have any right to hide their bigotry or beliefs, if they choose to run a business on them. And, it's against the law to advertise you sell something if you don't actually sell it.

And then the rest of us, who might buy from them or from another, can make our commercial decisions on any bigotry or believe that we choose to act on. It's the same as when we had signs like this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3bhsEChcjNw/TlZXbdJSZKI/AAAAAAAAR5w/0LMsaqqXxck/s1600/Bruce+Davidson6336.jpg

Vandalizing their property, however, would be wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on Republicans

I know you love to pander to your gay hating base. But are you ever going to learn?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is ready to sign into law a bill allowing businesses to refuse service to gays for "religious reasons" . All this ten days before the NCAA Final Four comes to Indianapolis. So what was once an opportunity to show the country what a great location his state is for major events, now becomes a poster child for "We hate gays".
See how many Final Fours come back to Indianapolis. Superbowl? Forget it Mike

But at least you got to score points with your gay hating base

Republicans just can't help themselves.
Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

The religious freedom law has absolutely nothing to do with gays any more than similar laws in 30 other states do.

A law professor's take on it:

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks. . . .
Law professor Why Indiana needs religious freedom legislation​

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.
I say.....bullshit

Prior to same sex marriages, we never had a need for such legislation. Indiana, seeing same sex marriage becoming the law of the land in June is trying to pre-empt the rights of gays to marry

I suspect the law will be narrowly enforced and that fundamentalist christians nt Muslims will be the prime beneficiaries

Well I'll leave it to you and the law professor to work out where the bullshit is.

I may not be a law professor, but I do watch Judge Judy every day


Thats good enough for USMB

Well then I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. And that trumps Judge Judy.

 

[bripat9643]

Come on Republicans

I know you love to pander to your gay hating base. But are you ever going to learn?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is ready to sign into law a bill allowing businesses to refuse service to gays for "religious reasons" . All this ten days before the NCAA Final Four comes to Indianapolis. So what was once an opportunity to show the country what a great location his state is for major events, now becomes a poster child for "We hate gays".
See how many Final Fours come back to Indianapolis. Superbowl? Forget it Mike

But at least you got to score points with your gay hating base

Republicans just can't help themselves.






Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com

The white christian party cries that they are being persecuted for their religion, and yet pass laws to making it OK discriminate against another group

They are screaming for the right of their religion to persecute others

Refusing to bake someone a cake is not "persecuting" them, you fucking moron.

 

[Seawytch]

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.
I say.....bullshit

Prior to same sex marriages, we never had a need for such legislation. Indiana, seeing same sex marriage becoming the law of the land in June is trying to pre-empt the rights of gays to marry

I suspect the law will be narrowly enforced and that fundamentalist christians nt Muslims will be the prime beneficiaries

Well I'll leave it to you and the law professor to work out where the bullshit is.

I may not be a law professor, but I do watch Judge Judy every day


Thats good enough for USMB

That appears to be the extent of your legal knowledge.

It more than qualifies me to discuss legal matters on USMB

You aren't qualified to discuss legal matters on teletubbies.

I understand it works both ways, it's your side that thinks it doesn't and wish to force your values on others. But as more and more states adopt similar laws to protect their religious majorities from state sponsored violations of the 1st Amendment, then people who agree with them will seek to do business with them. People are getting fed up with radical liberalism and radical atheist.

Making bigotry a religion is hardly what America is about.

Yet the persecution of the religious majority is a staple of the religion of radical liberalism and radical atheist, but that's ok because it's your side doing it, right?

In order to fulfill your beliefs we would have to bring back the right of businesses to refuse to serve anyone they didn't like.

That's why a biz should be forced to identify before hand what group they won't serve. Eventually they would either be bankrupted or driven into the underground economy because Wal-Mart or Amazon will destroy them.

That's precisely why they shouldn't be forced to identify.

So they should be able to discriminate, but they should be able to hide that fact?

Cowardly and bigoted.

 

[bripat9643]

Well I'll leave it to you and the law professor to work out where the bullshit is.

I may not be a law professor, but I do watch Judge Judy every day


Thats good enough for USMB

That appears to be the extent of your legal knowledge.

It more than qualifies me to discuss legal matters on USMB

You aren't qualified to discuss legal matters on teletubbies.

Making bigotry a religion is hardly what America is about.

Yet the persecution of the religious majority is a staple of the religion of radical liberalism and radical atheist, but that's ok because it's your side doing it, right?

In order to fulfill your beliefs we would have to bring back the right of businesses to refuse to serve anyone they didn't like.

That's why a biz should be forced to identify before hand what group they won't serve. Eventually they would either be bankrupted or driven into the underground economy because Wal-Mart or Amazon will destroy them.

That's precisely why they shouldn't be forced to identify.

They shouldn't be allowed to advertise they provide a service, if they have no intention of providing that to someone. They don't have any right to hide their bigotry or beliefs, if they choose to run a business on them. And then the rest of us, who might buy from them or from another, can make our commercial decisions on any bigotry or believe that we choose to act on. It's the same as when we had signs like this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3bhsEChcjNw/TlZXbdJSZKI/AAAAAAAAR5w/0LMsaqqXxck/s1600/Bruce+Davidson6336.jpg

Vandalizing their property, however, would be wrong.

Fuck you. They do have the right to tell people whatever they like so long as it isn't fraudulent. Who put you in charge of deciding what rights people have?

And it isn't the same. For one thing, homosexuality is a behavior. Race is something you're born with. For another, Jim Crow was mandated by law. It was legally enforced. Businesses were legally barred from serving blacks in the same locations as whites.

 

[rightwinger]

I honestly believe most Republicans have seen the light on gay rights

We're not speaking of Republicans, we're speaking of Americans; which is to say those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America... OKA: Natural Principles.

Admit it....you have lost
Gay Marriage will be the law of the land by June

An no, Americans do not support you

Most Republicans have given up on the issue and just wish it would go away. It makes them lose votes and credibility with younger voters

Nice projection there. So when the democrats changed their mind and began voting for gay marriage it was only because they were loosing votes and credibility? Or did the democrats vote against gay marriage in the past because otherwise they would loose votes and credibility?

I think most democrats looked at things like DADT and civil unions as a middle ground where the homosexual issue would settle and go away

It did not work out that way and thankfully so

Republicans realize this is a losing issue for them in 2016 and would like it to just go away. The Supreme Court deciding for them keeps them from having to state a position either way

But there is the radical Fag Haters who just can't drop it

 

[Nosmo King]

.

I realize this approach won't be popular, but let's take a moment to "think things through".

What are these people going to do, hang a "NO GAYS ALLOWED" sign on their window? Classy. That would make it easy for people to take a photo of it, and before you know it, everyone on the planet knows about it. Then it won't be just the gay population that doesn't go in there, it would be a large segment of the population, those of us who don't like such simple-minded bigotry. Any restaurant that tried that would see a significant drop in business, and no restaurant can afford that for long. Bye bye!

So you're an anti-gay bigot? Cool. Thanks for letting me know. Put up a big sign so that I'll know, and then I'll also know never to go in there and to tell a few friends about it.

Yeah, pass that law.

.

"No Gays Allowed" is too simple.

If these bigoted merchants were intellectually honest their signs should read: "Due to our devotion to Jesus Christ who taught 'Love one another as you would be loved' and 'Judge not lest ye be judged', we refuse to serve American citizens who are homosexuals".

 

[Preacher]

Stand strong Indiana! Don't let the economic terrorist threats stop you from doing what's right! No more will faggots and their allies be allowed to destroy business using their terrorist acts.

 

[Seawytch]

I may not be a law professor, but I do watch Judge Judy every day


Thats good enough for USMB

That appears to be the extent of your legal knowledge.

It more than qualifies me to discuss legal matters on USMB

You aren't qualified to discuss legal matters on teletubbies.

Yet the persecution of the religious majority is a staple of the religion of radical liberalism and radical atheist, but that's ok because it's your side doing it, right?

In order to fulfill your beliefs we would have to bring back the right of businesses to refuse to serve anyone they didn't like.

That's why a biz should be forced to identify before hand what group they won't serve. Eventually they would either be bankrupted or driven into the underground economy because Wal-Mart or Amazon will destroy them.

That's precisely why they shouldn't be forced to identify.

They shouldn't be allowed to advertise they provide a service, if they have no intention of providing that to someone. They don't have any right to hide their bigotry or beliefs, if they choose to run a business on them. And then the rest of us, who might buy from them or from another, can make our commercial decisions on any bigotry or believe that we choose to act on. It's the same as when we had signs like this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3bhsEChcjNw/TlZXbdJSZKI/AAAAAAAAR5w/0LMsaqqXxck/s1600/Bruce+Davidson6336.jpg

Vandalizing their property, however, would be wrong.

Fuck you. They do have the right to tell people whatever they like so long as it isn't fraudulent. Who put you in charge of deciding what rights people have?

Cowards. They are cowards. They want to throw rocks and hide their hands.

Yelp will take care of the bigots, but they should still have to advertise that they will discriminate.

 

[bripat9643]

Well I'll leave it to you and the law professor to work out where the bullshit is.

I may not be a law professor, but I do watch Judge Judy every day


Thats good enough for USMB

That appears to be the extent of your legal knowledge.

It more than qualifies me to discuss legal matters on USMB

You aren't qualified to discuss legal matters on teletubbies.

Making bigotry a religion is hardly what America is about.

Yet the persecution of the religious majority is a staple of the religion of radical liberalism and radical atheist, but that's ok because it's your side doing it, right?

In order to fulfill your beliefs we would have to bring back the right of businesses to refuse to serve anyone they didn't like.

That's why a biz should be forced to identify before hand what group they won't serve. Eventually they would either be bankrupted or driven into the underground economy because Wal-Mart or Amazon will destroy them.

That's precisely why they shouldn't be forced to identify.

So they should be able to discriminate, but they should be able to hide that fact?

Cowardly and bigoted.

Do you disclose the fact that you're a moron?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We're not speaking of Republicans, we're speaking of Americans; which is to say those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America... OKA: Natural Principles.

Admit it....you have lost
Gay Marriage will be the law of the land by June ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

For you, it may very well be

Marriage is, a law of nature, which requires such is he joining of one man and one woman.

FYI: another Law of Nature is that lending money to people on the basis of a deviant interpretation of 'fairness: defined as "Everyone deserves to own their own home", will lead to the catastrophic failure of loans made on such.

(Reader, you should know that the above cited contributor and 100% of those who agree with him with regard to rejecting the natural law of marriage, were in total support of the Left's decades long effort to coerce the Financial Industry into dropping the longstanding, sustaining actuarial lending principles, for the Left's perverse definition of fairness. And well, you remember how that worked out. What you may not know is that the financial industry, while an important element of the culture, is irrelevant in terms of sustaining the culture, when compared to the Nucleus of the Culture; OKA: Marriage. And while the Leftist policy that modified lending principle lead to financial catastrophe... the consequences of what they're foolishly proposing here will be exponentially more destructive. In truth, you've no means to so much as imagine the brutality to come from following their road map BACK to humanity's understanding of natural law.)