Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[daws101]

Indiana lawmakers OK changes to religious objections law
Indiana lawmakers OK changes to religious objections law - Yahoo News

"The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act approved Thursday by both chambers prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on factors that include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service."

Happy days. Say goodbye to the Pizza Bigot's right to not cater gay weddings, they just lost it.

A recomPENCE of sorts.

you sound kind of PENSIVE!

 

[daws101]

Let's clear this up. The law in the OP no longer exists.

 

[LeftofLeft]

If the same voices calling for business owners to serve gays no matter what, those same voices need to stop supporting the mandate that consumers to take their bacon and liquor into the other aisle because the clerk has religious beliefs that prevent them from handling those goods.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember the old days when the OP had these opinions?

A Political and Moral dilemma solved Homosexuality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the same voices calling for business owners to serve gays no matter what, those same voices need to stop supporting the mandate that consumers to take their bacon and liquor into the other aisle because the clerk has religious beliefs that prevent them from handling those goods.

Who supports that? These so-called religious freedom laws are going to prevent businesses from firing a Muslim store clerk that doesn't want to sell alcohol or touch pork.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's clear up why I was right and you were wrong, OP.

Look at the revised law:

"The Indiana amendment prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide goods, services, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or U.S. military service."

NOW the law now cannot be used as legal defense against charges of discrimination. Just as I kept telling you and you kept denying,

the law WAS originally designed to make religion a legal defense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And the next question is, if in fact the revised law no longer does what the anti-gay lobby wanted it to do,

what is the point of the law at all?

 

[LeftofLeft]

If the same voices calling for business owners to serve gays no matter what, those same voices need to stop supporting the mandate that consumers to take their bacon and liquor into the other aisle because the clerk has religious beliefs that prevent them from handling those goods.

Who supports that? These so-called religious freedom laws are going to prevent businesses from firing a Muslim store clerk that doesn't want to sell alcohol or touch pork.

A man walks into a Target. Heads to checkout line. His cart includes pork and alcoholic beverages. After standing in line, He is told that due to the clerk's religious beliefs, he must back out of the line and go stand in another line. After this inconvenience, he visits a bakery across town to inquire about a cake for an upcoming wedding that he and his partner are planning. The owner of the bakery politely declines siting his religious beliefs and recommends another bakery. The man turns around and sues the bakery in order to be served; coupled with a national smear campaign and terror threats to the baker and his family.

The Muslim clerk gets his/her job protected due to religious beliefs despite inconveniencing the customer yet the Christian baker business owner deserves to be run out of business for inconveniencing a customer? Gays and Muslims rights trump Christians? Don't all rights matter?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays and Muslims rights trump Christians?

No, they don't. And if you would all grow the **** up, this would all go away.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you can't name who made the reports, or how the information was substantiated.

Typical low information, lying hack.

you can look it up yourself ...but that would mean you have to admit I'm right .

"I made the assertion, now it's YOUR job to prove me right! I've done MY part!"

Piss off.

wrong I'm under no obligation to prove my assertion, it's on the plaintiff to disprove it.

Sorry, Sparkles, but by definition, if you make an assertion, YOU are the plaintiff . . . inasmuch as there is any such thing when this is a conversation, not a court of law, dumbass.

Furthermore, it is ALWAYS your job to prove, not other people's job to disprove while you just throw out blank assertions. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead, but don't be surprised when everyone just starts dismissing you as a lightweight . . . even more than we do now.

is this the fantasy we or the appeal to the ignorant masses we?
either way, what you and the we "think" is laughable

Ah, elitism. The assumption that you're smarter than everyone else is even funnier coming from someone who's less intelligent than my new puppy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Waiting for the devoutly religious to go to court to claim special status as a minority and requesting opposition to their beliefs as a hate crime.

Pizza folks are getting death threats.
Could be interesting.

Religion is already a protected category, and already covered by hate crime laws, although simply opposing them for it is not a hate crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the same voices calling for business owners to serve gays no matter what, those same voices need to stop supporting the mandate that consumers to take their bacon and liquor into the other aisle because the clerk has religious beliefs that prevent them from handling those goods.

Who supports that? These so-called religious freedom laws are going to prevent businesses from firing a Muslim store clerk that doesn't want to sell alcohol or touch pork.

A man walks into a Target. Heads to checkout line. His cart includes pork and alcoholic beverages. After standing in line, He is told that due to the clerk's religious beliefs, he must back out of the line and go stand in another line. After this inconvenience, he visits a bakery across town to inquire about a cake for an upcoming wedding that he and his partner are planning. The owner of the bakery politely declines siting his religious beliefs and recommends another bakery. The man turns around and sues the bakery in order to be served; coupled with a national smear campaign and terror threats to the baker and his family.

The Muslim clerk gets his/her job protected due to religious beliefs despite inconveniencing the customer yet the Christian baker business owner deserves to be run out of business for inconveniencing a customer? Gays and Muslims rights trump Christians? Don't all rights matter?

Are there Targets where Muslims are working as cashiers who don't have to ring up pork and alcohol?

 

[daws101]

you can look it up yourself ...but that would mean you have to admit I'm right .

"I made the assertion, now it's YOUR job to prove me right! I've done MY part!"

Piss off.

wrong I'm under no obligation to prove my assertion, it's on the plaintiff to disprove it.

Sorry, Sparkles, but by definition, if you make an assertion, YOU are the plaintiff . . . inasmuch as there is any such thing when this is a conversation, not a court of law, dumbass.

Furthermore, it is ALWAYS your job to prove, not other people's job to disprove while you just throw out blank assertions. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead, but don't be surprised when everyone just starts dismissing you as a lightweight . . . even more than we do now.

is this the fantasy we or the appeal to the ignorant masses we?
either way, what you and the we "think" is laughable

Ah, elitism. The assumption that you're smarter than everyone else is even funnier coming from someone who's less intelligent than my new puppy.

as always you've got it wrong...
you are one of the most faux elitist posters on this board everything you post is crammed full of pretentious crap.
I don't assume that I'm more intelligent than the "we" you imagine ,all I have to be is just a touch smarter than you.
that's a given.

 

[dblack]

Let's clear this up. The law in the OP no longer exists.

Yeah. But the protected classes and PA laws that prompted it still are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"I made the assertion, now it's YOUR job to prove me right! I've done MY part!"

Piss off.

wrong I'm under no obligation to prove my assertion, it's on the plaintiff to disprove it.

Sorry, Sparkles, but by definition, if you make an assertion, YOU are the plaintiff . . . inasmuch as there is any such thing when this is a conversation, not a court of law, dumbass.

Furthermore, it is ALWAYS your job to prove, not other people's job to disprove while you just throw out blank assertions. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead, but don't be surprised when everyone just starts dismissing you as a lightweight . . . even more than we do now.

is this the fantasy we or the appeal to the ignorant masses we?
either way, what you and the we "think" is laughable

Ah, elitism. The assumption that you're smarter than everyone else is even funnier coming from someone who's less intelligent than my new puppy.

as always you've got it wrong...
you are one of the most faux elitist posters on this board everything you post is crammed full of pretentious crap.
I don't assume that I'm more intelligent than the "we" you imagine ,all I have to be is just a touch smarter than you.
that's a given.

I stand by my statement that you are less intelligent than my new puppy.

You're also not nearly as cute.

 

[daws101]

wrong I'm under no obligation to prove my assertion, it's on the plaintiff to disprove it.

Sorry, Sparkles, but by definition, if you make an assertion, YOU are the plaintiff . . . inasmuch as there is any such thing when this is a conversation, not a court of law, dumbass.

Furthermore, it is ALWAYS your job to prove, not other people's job to disprove while you just throw out blank assertions. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead, but don't be surprised when everyone just starts dismissing you as a lightweight . . . even more than we do now.

is this the fantasy we or the appeal to the ignorant masses we?
either way, what you and the we "think" is laughable

Ah, elitism. The assumption that you're smarter than everyone else is even funnier coming from someone who's less intelligent than my new puppy.

as always you've got it wrong...
you are one of the most faux elitist posters on this board everything you post is crammed full of pretentious crap.
I don't assume that I'm more intelligent than the "we" you imagine ,all I have to be is just a touch smarter than you.
that's a given.

I stand by my statement that you are less intelligent than my new puppy.

You're also not nearly as cute.

thanks for proving my point.