Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When a baker gets sued for $100,000, it's not a "non-issue." Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that this is the latest campaign of the gay agenda: They intend to force everyone to cater to their revolting lifestyle.That's really the issue in Indiana. Even in places with public accommodations laws, the customer has to be pretty explicit in saying they're gay, e.g. "we want two grooms on our cake." The hilarious thing in Indiana is that there was NO legal way to sue over gay discrimination by a private party. Indianapolis apparently has a local city ordinance. But the Indiana legislature and Governor had to get in the clown car to address this looming non-issue that arose from their imaginations, prejudices and sexual fears. SWEEEETHow is a business now going to test to see if they want to serve you? Questionnaire? Perhaps they know how to tell? If they accidentally serve a person who is gay and they learn about it, can they go after the customer? What if the customer lies? These are interesting questions.
Wrong."A member of the H. of Rep. offer a bill to add the LGBT community to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and see how many members from each Caucus sign on as co-sponsors"
Something that should be done but unfortunately won't, given the current makeup of Congress and the unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans coming mostly from the right.Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
Choices regarding one's sexual behavior, are irrelevant to rules, regulations and laws regarding RACE.
Discrimination against people known for their poor choices, is a fundamental NECESSITY OF NATURE.
Wrong.
Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; the protected liberty of choice is immune from attack by government. Gay Americans are therefore entitled to Constitutional protections. See: Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Consequently, government is also at liberty to designate sexual orientation as a human condition protected by public accommodations laws, where to discriminate based on sexual orientation is just as disruptive to the markets as to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin.
You mean the Deiests? Who had learned from what tyranny the Puritans had created?Without our secular laws....I have no doubt the radical christians among us would try the same thing.
Weren't the Christians the ones who made those secular laws, assclown shortbus?
LOL
You sure are dumb.
Wrong."A member of the H. of Rep. offer a bill to add the LGBT community to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and see how many members from each Caucus sign on as co-sponsors"
Something that should be done but unfortunately won't, given the current makeup of Congress and the unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans coming mostly from the right.Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
Choices regarding one's sexual behavior, are irrelevant to rules, regulations and laws regarding RACE.
Discrimination against people known for their poor choices, is a fundamental NECESSITY OF NATURE.
Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; the protected liberty of choice is immune from attack by government. Gay Americans are therefore entitled to Constitutional protections. See: Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Consequently, government is also at liberty to designate sexual orientation as a human condition protected by public accommodations laws, where to discriminate based on sexual orientation is just as disruptive to the markets as to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin.
They dont need gov't to hold their hand. They need gov't to hold a gun to the heads of those who disagree with them. IT's the only way they win. Gay marriage was a loser at the ballot box so they whined to the courts to force states to accept it. Here its the same thing. They want the state to force behavior in others.I remember seeing signs that said "We reserve the right to refuse service"
That should be the law of the land, period. The public can easily put any business that abuses it out of service but you stupid fucking libs need the government holding your damn hands in every aspect of life
Wrong."A member of the H. of Rep. offer a bill to add the LGBT community to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and see how many members from each Caucus sign on as co-sponsors"
Something that should be done but unfortunately won't, given the current makeup of Congress and the unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans coming mostly from the right.Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
Choices regarding one's sexual behavior, are irrelevant to rules, regulations and laws regarding RACE.
Discrimination against people known for their poor choices, is a fundamental NECESSITY OF NATURE.
Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; the protected liberty of choice is immune from attack by government. Gay Americans are therefore entitled to Constitutional protections. See: Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Consequently, government is also at liberty to designate sexual orientation as a human condition protected by public accommodations laws, where to discriminate based on sexual orientation is just as disruptive to the markets as to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin.
And if someone is born a pedophile then is that behavior okay?
Wrong.
Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; the protected liberty of choice is immune from attack by government. Gay Americans are therefore entitled to Constitutional protections. See: Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Consequently, government is also at liberty to designate sexual orientation as a human condition protected by public accommodations laws, where to discriminate based on sexual orientation is just as disruptive to the markets as to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin.
ROFLMNAO!
Now how precious is THAT?
You feel that foolish conclusions made prior to now, are going to force us to allow the mentally disordered to strip marriage of the standards that sustain the viability of civilization?
LOL! Now that IS... ADORABLE!
Homosexuality rests entirely in deceit, being advanced as truth.
There is no potential for a right to promote deceit as truth. And as such, there is no potential for Constitutional protections of such.
See how that works, scamp?
And we, The Americans... in keeping with the Principles on which the Nation rests... are prepared to go to war to settle this.
And if someone is born a pedophile then is that behavior okay?
Default response to this is " HOW DARE YOU EQUATE THOSE WHO ALREADY CLAIM TO BE UNABLE TO COMPORT THEIR BEHAVIOR WITHIN REASONABLE CULTURAL STANDARDS... WITH THOSE WHO REFUSE TO COMPORT THEMSELVES WITHIN REASONABLE CULTURAL STANDARDS ... BLAH BLAH BLAH: Pedophilia is ILLEGAL!" When you ask them if they accept Legalizing Pedophilia, the conversation dries up and but QUICK.
And if someone is born a pedophile then is that behavior okay?
Default response to this is " HOW DARE YOU EQUATE THOSE WHO ALREADY CLAIM TO BE UNABLE TO COMPORT THEIR BEHAVIOR WITHIN REASONABLE CULTURAL STANDARDS... WITH THOSE WHO REFUSE TO COMPORT THEMSELVES WITHIN REASONABLE CULTURAL STANDARDS ... BLAH BLAH BLAH: Pedophilia is ILLEGAL!" When you ask them if they accept Legalizing Pedophilia, the conversation dries up and but QUICK.
If someone is born a psychopath can I decide not to hire them based on that? There are many holes in this faux argument they are using.
It may very well, given how the law is written.Like not letting you kick the colored people out of your restaurant.
Colored people are going to be the same color everyday. Choosing to not be that color is not an option for colored people. Unlike the sexually abnormal, who CHOOSE to behave the way THEY BEHAVE.
You see scamp, valid law does not speak to one's predilections... Valid Law ONLY speaks to one's CHOICES.
Every FIBER of your BEING can be telling you to push the accelerator down until your speeding down the highway at 200 MPH... You NEED FOR SPEED has been consistently deemed irrelevant where individuals are charged with exceeding the LEGAL LIMIT ON SPEED.
Same is true for one's NEED for $10,000 which required them to CHOOSE TO SHOVE A GUN IN A TELLERS FACE TO GET THAT SERIOUSLY NEEDED COIN FROM THE BANK.
One's natural desire for more than they have produced, has consistently been rejected as a valid defense.
Just as ONE'S DESIRE FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION WITH CHILDREN OR ANIMALS OR PEOPLE OF ONE'S OWN GENDER, has no bearing on one CHOOSING TO FULFILL THAT DESIRE.
And none of that has ANY bearing on one's RIGHT, disembodied from ANY SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY, to DEMAND that crucial public standards be lowered to offer the illusion that such choices are legitimate.
And that's all we're discussing here... without regard to the rationalizations which seek to make irrelevancy APPEAR relevant.
Homosexual sex between consenting adults is legal.
Does the Indiana law prevent someone from using religion as a reason not to do business with a colored person?
Thanks to the new Indiana law, he an other rightwing bigots can dream up any inane, lame reason to claim accommodating gay Americans 'violates' his 'religious beliefs.'Actually, it wasn't the "same thing"
Lying as always, eh shitflinger?
{(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.}
Is that Indiana, or the Clinton bill, shitflinger?
quiet, hack. what religion requires that you discriminate against people?
you loons said the same thing when you were opposing desegregation.
We must all admit that all the protesting and hb blurb going on about it is fun to watch. CEO's are speaking out against it. Mayors in Indiana are speaking out against it. Pence is holding firm but is surprised by the backlash. This is fun viewing and is great to see.
We must all admit that all the protesting and hb blurb going on about it is fun to watch. CEO's are speaking out against it. Mayors in Indiana are speaking out against it. Pence is holding firm but is surprised by the backlash. This is fun viewing and is great to see.
