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

[RKMBrown]

[

Then get rid of PA laws. I thought the Right wanted less government...so get rid of what you think is a bad law......don't add MORE laws.

When the filthy ass government forces you to do business with somebody you don't want to do business with then it is bad law. Especially when it goes against your freedom of religion as in this case.

The government protecting freedom by establishing a law that protects the right of free association is a good thing. Especially when it protects the Constitutional right of freedom of religion as in this case.

Liberals are hung up on this this stupid thing about providing equal outcomes. It is this communistic ideal that they have have, which is always the root of every Liberal idea. They hate the concept of liberty and freedom because that .doesn't always guarantee equal outcome. They have a hard time dealing with that.

The basic concept of freedom is not advanced when the filthy ass government tells you who you have to associate with.

Look, there are gays in the USA. If you don't want to serve gays move to a state that does not have PA laws for gays or stop selling your goods to the public at large. It really is that simple.

 

[Stephanie]

I seriously don't see the problem with this new law. It goes along the lines of "we have the right to refuse service to anyone", doesn't it? If businesses do not want to cater to homosexuals or muslims or green skinned aliens....then that is on the businesses' heads...and pocket book. Businesses should not be FORCED to do business with those that go against their own freedom of choice.

Here's what's wrong with your views:

A person could be having a heart attack and the doctor or hospital would refuse to help them because they are of the wrong skin color or of who they love. So the person dies.

Or the one and only store in an area refuses to sell food to a person because of the color of their skin or who they love. So the person starves to death or has to finds a way to move to a place that will have a store that will sell them food.

A person shouldn't be denied life saving help or basic food to live just because another person says their religion doesn't approve of that person's lifestyle or what that person looks like.

A person shouldn't have to leave their home, all the people they love and their job just because someone says their religion doesn't approve of them and refuses to sell them food.

If a person goes in business to serve the public, then that person serves all the public. Not just those they say their religion approves of.

Yeah...well in more than half the states you can be fired or denied housing or basic services just for being gay. That's right, it's not just in "right to work" states where you can be fired for being gay, but in 30 out of 50 states. And yeah, can you believe it, but gays can actually be denied housing because they are gay.

Can you imagine coming back from your honeymoon to find out you've been fired and kicked out of your home?

People that say we don't need Public Accommodation laws anymore think only of urban areas where there is often another vendor or service provider. They forget about the rural living gay or Muslim (the last minority groups it's "okay" to discriminate against) Where is the rural dwelling Muslim or gay family supposed to buy food or fuel?

I can't agree with you more.

We are living in a nation that allows it's citizens to be denied basic necessities of life just because of who they love.

I guess that's what the right wing bigots call American Exceptionalism.

Yeah and when Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama voted for this bill the left wing bigots celebrated.

yep
they are so dishonest and disgusting in how they mislead the American people..... all for their OWN ugly AGENDA.

 

[Flash]

Will "Republicans ever learn"? Gee, will liberals ever learn to simply respect the values and beliefs of others, instead of trying to force religious vendors to service events that they find offensive and uncomfortable?

And maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see a liberal answer the question of why someone would want to force anyone to attend, much less service, their wedding against their will? Why would someone want anyone at their wedding who they knew did not want to be there, not to mention found it objectionable and uncomfortable?

Wedding flowers, cakes, and photographs are not "basic necessities of life." And no gay couple to date has reported being unable to find vendors to service their ceremonies.

The basic problem here is that the homosexual community is part of that despicable coalition of greedy Democrat special interest groups.

The Liberals know it is wrong to force somebody to do business with someone they don't do business with but the Liberals don't care because they want the support of the homosexual community.

 

[Stephanie]

I seriously don't see the problem with this new law. It goes along the lines of "we have the right to refuse service to anyone", doesn't it? If businesses do not want to cater to homosexuals or muslims or green skinned aliens....then that is on the businesses' heads...and pocket book. Businesses should not be FORCED to do business with those that go against their own freedom of choice.

Here's what's wrong with your views:

A person could be having a heart attack and the doctor or hospital would refuse to help them because they are of the wrong skin color or of who they love. So the person dies.

Or the one and only store in an area refuses to sell food to a person because of the color of their skin or who they love. So the person starves to death or has to finds a way to move to a place that will have a store that will sell them food.

A person shouldn't be denied life saving help or basic food to live just because another person says their religion doesn't approve of that person's lifestyle or what that person looks like.

A person shouldn't have to leave their home, all the people they love and their job just because someone says their religion doesn't approve of them and refuses to sell them food.

If a person goes in business to serve the public, then that person serves all the public. Not just those they say their religion approves of.

Yeah...well in more than half the states you can be fired or denied housing or basic services just for being gay. That's right, it's not just in "right to work" states where you can be fired for being gay, but in 30 out of 50 states. And yeah, can you believe it, but gays can actually be denied housing because they are gay.

Can you imagine coming back from your honeymoon to find out you've been fired and kicked out of your home?

People that say we don't need Public Accommodation laws anymore think only of urban areas where there is often another vendor or service provider. They forget about the rural living gay or Muslim (the last minority groups it's "okay" to discriminate against) Where is the rural dwelling Muslim or gay family supposed to buy food or fuel?

I can't agree with you more.

We are living in a nation that allows it's citizens to be denied basic necessities of life just because of who they love.

I guess that's what the right wing bigots call American Exceptionalism.

Yeah and when Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama voted for this bill the left wing bigots celebrated.

SNIP:

Remember When Democrats Used To Support Religious Freedom?

March 26, 2015 By Bill Clinton


Remarks on Signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
November 16, 1993

Remember When Democrats Supported Religious Freedom

 

[Flash]

Look, there are gays in the USA. If you don't want to serve gays move to a state that does not have PA laws for gays or stop selling your goods to the public at large. It really is that simple.

No, you have it wrong.

The simple solution is for the government to stop telling the people to go against their religious beliefs.

No state government or the federal government should have the right to demand that you do business with somebody that you don't want to do business with, especially for religious reasons.

Thank goodness that you have that basic freedom now in Indiana.

 

[rightwinger]

Will "Republicans ever learn"? Gee, will liberals ever learn to simply respect the values and beliefs of others, instead of trying to force religious vendors to service events that they find offensive and uncomfortable?

And maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see a liberal answer the question of why someone would want to force anyone to attend, much less service, their wedding against their will? Why would someone want anyone at their wedding who they knew did not want to be there, not to mention found it objectionable and uncomfortable?

Wedding flowers, cakes, and photographs are not "basic necessities of life." And no gay couple to date has reported being unable to find vendors to service their ceremonies.

Because redneck America tends to concentrate in small towns. Small Sputhern Baptist towns that hate gays. Towns with one doctor,one car repair shop, one baker. Everyone is baptists and nobody wants to serve gays
This is not what America is about

 

[Disir]

We should boycott the USA this law passed in indiana is already federal law. Brought to us by Bill Clinton.

Clinton sucked. He sucked bad. There was nothing liberal about him. Nothing.

 

[Disir]

Look, there are gays in the USA. If you don't want to serve gays move to a state that does not have PA laws for gays or stop selling your goods to the public at large. It really is that simple.

No, you have it wrong.

The simple solution is for the government to stop telling the people to go against their religious beliefs.

No state government or the federal government should have the right to demand that you do business with somebody that you don't want to do business with, especially for religious reasons.

Thank goodness that you have that basic freedom now in Indiana.

and that shit should be posted on the door so that nobody makes the mistake of giving money to derelicts. Big ass filthy sign above the filthy door that says: BIGOT.

 

[RKMBrown]

Look, there are gays in the USA. If you don't want to serve gays move to a state that does not have PA laws for gays or stop selling your goods to the public at large. It really is that simple.

No, you have it wrong.

The simple solution is for the government to stop telling the people to go against their religious beliefs.

No state government or the federal government should have the right to demand that you do business with somebody that you don't want to do business with, especially for religious reasons.

Thank goodness that you have that basic freedom now in Indiana.

I'm not sure you quite understand. Some states that have a PA law that says you can't discriminate PA based on sexual orientation. Yes or No?
If yes, what do you think that means? If no, please find some sand to bury your head

 

[RKMBrown]

We should boycott the USA this law passed in indiana is already federal law. Brought to us by Bill Clinton.

Clinton sucked. He sucked bad. There was nothing liberal about him. Nothing.

Yeah and Bush sucked. He sucked bad. He was a socialist through and through. And Obama is an authoritarian socialist who sucks bad. There is nothing liberal about him either. Nothing.

Thus let's face it, both political parties are chock full of authoritarian socialist politicians that suck, bad.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I seriously don't see the problem with this new law. It goes along the lines of "we have the right to refuse service to anyone", doesn't it? If businesses do not want to cater to homosexuals or muslims or green skinned aliens....then that is on the businesses' heads...and pocket book. Businesses should not be FORCED to do business with those that go against their own freedom of choice.

Here's what's wrong with your views:

A person could be having a heart attack and the doctor or hospital would refuse to help them because they are of the wrong skin color or of who they love. So the person dies.

Or the one and only store in an area refuses to sell food to a person because of the color of their skin or who they love. So the person starves to death or has to finds a way to move to a place that will have a store that will sell them food.

A person shouldn't be denied life saving help or basic food to live just because another person says their religion doesn't approve of that person's lifestyle or what that person looks like.

A person shouldn't have to leave their home, all the people they love and their job just because someone says their religion doesn't approve of them and refuses to sell them food.

If a person goes in business to serve the public, then that person serves all the public. Not just those they say their religion approves of.

Yeah...well in more than half the states you can be fired or denied housing or basic services just for being gay. That's right, it's not just in "right to work" states where you can be fired for being gay, but in 30 out of 50 states. And yeah, can you believe it, but gays can actually be denied housing because they are gay.

Can you imagine coming back from your honeymoon to find out you've been fired and kicked out of your home?

People that say we don't need Public Accommodation laws anymore think only of urban areas where there is often another vendor or service provider. They forget about the rural living gay or Muslim (the last minority groups it's "okay" to discriminate against) Where is the rural dwelling Muslim or gay family supposed to buy food or fuel?

I can't agree with you more.

We are living in a nation that allows it's citizens to be denied basic necessities of life just because of who they love.

I guess that's what the right wing bigots call American Exceptionalism.

Yeah and when Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama voted for this bill the left wing bigots celebrated.

SNIP:

Remember When Democrats Used To Support Religious Freedom?

March 26, 2015 By Bill Clinton


Remarks on Signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
November 16, 1993

Remember When Democrats Supported Religious Freedom

Too bad Stephanie didn't read the link she posted, or if she did, she didn't understand it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. What harm, problem or other circumstance required the State of Indiana to promulgate this law?"

 

[RKMBrown]

Q. What harm, problem or other circumstance required the State of Indiana to promulgate this law?"

Pence said it was based on the Hobby Lobby issue where some people were trying to force Hobby Lobby to pay for abortions.

 

[Disir]

We should boycott the USA this law passed in indiana is already federal law. Brought to us by Bill Clinton.

Clinton sucked. He sucked bad. There was nothing liberal about him. Nothing.

Yeah and Bush sucked. He sucked bad. He was a socialist through and through. And Obama is an authoritarian socialist who sucks bad. There is nothing liberal about him either. Nothing.

Thus let's face it, both political parties are chock full of authoritarian socialist politicians that suck, bad.

Neither of them were socialists. At all. Bush took the hit for furthering the direction of education initiated by Clinton. Clinton signed changes into law that directly effected welfare that were bizarre. Bush rode as close to a theocracy as one can get. As long as everyone forgets Charitable Choice. And Obama is a neoliberal.

 

[Flash]

Many of us don't give a damn what your filthy ass thinks.

Of course you are stupid Libtards. You never give a damn about Constitutional freedoms. The only one that you hate more than that Second one is the one guaranteeing freedom of religion. That really pisses you off.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

There are millions of small towns all over America. Towns so small that there's just one store. One gas station. One post office.

If the person who owns the one and only food store in the town refuses to sell to someone because the store owner says it's against their religion, where is that person going to get food? ...snip...
Or you come to me with cancer and I'm the only doctor for hundreds of miles that can treat your cancer. I look at you and decide my religion doesn't approve of right wing bigots and I refuse to treat you. You die because proper medical help was refused to you just because of who you are and what you look like.

Now do you get it?

. This is the dumbest arguement ever presented. The Bible doesn't prohibit selling gasoline to gays. PA laws would apply in this case. Now don't YOU get it?

 

[RKMBrown]

We should boycott the USA this law passed in indiana is already federal law. Brought to us by Bill Clinton.

Clinton sucked. He sucked bad. There was nothing liberal about him. Nothing.

Yeah and Bush sucked. He sucked bad. He was a socialist through and through. And Obama is an authoritarian socialist who sucks bad. There is nothing liberal about him either. Nothing.

Thus let's face it, both political parties are chock full of authoritarian socialist politicians that suck, bad.

Neither of them were socialists. At all. Bush took the hit for furthering the direction of education initiated by Clinton. Clinton signed changes into law that directly effected welfare that were bizarre. Bush rode as close to a theocracy as one can get. As long as everyone forgets Charitable Choice. And Obama is a neoliberal.

No child left behind, isn't socialist? Expansion of Medicare, isn't socialist? Expansion of control over the Middle East, isn't authoritarian socialist? HUH? Bush was a leftist through and through, maybe a bit to the right of Obama but that's not saying much.

 

[Flash]

[

and that shit should be posted on the door so that nobody makes the mistake of giving money to derelicts. Big ass filthy sign above the filthy door that says: BIGOT.

Somebody that chose not to do business with the homosexual community will lose that business. It is a business decision and it is called freedom.

If you are so confused as to think I am bigot because by religious beliefs says that I shouldn't accommodate homosexuality then you are the intolerant one.

 

[Disir]

Q. What harm, problem or other circumstance required the State of Indiana to promulgate this law?"

Doesn't need to. A few years ago there was a lot of noise out of Indiana. They were trying to create legislation that would force church daycare centers to abide by the same regulations that secular institutions did. There was a huge problem with having 20-30 kids dropped off at a daycare and having one person or maybe two people there. The workers were saying this was a problem. There would be flammable stuff and poisonous stuff left in reach of the kids. These places received about $20,000 dollars (federal) money.

So, instead of recognizing a problem the Tea Party began saying that it was encroachment on religious liberty. Every time one of these fruitcakes picks up the religious liberty slogan then you know damn well it has nothing to do with religion. The good sisters aren't in that pic with Pence because they are just good sisters. You should take a look at just how many facilities these folks own.

 

[Disir]

We should boycott the USA this law passed in indiana is already federal law. Brought to us by Bill Clinton.

Clinton sucked. He sucked bad. There was nothing liberal about him. Nothing.

Yeah and Bush sucked. He sucked bad. He was a socialist through and through. And Obama is an authoritarian socialist who sucks bad. There is nothing liberal about him either. Nothing.

Thus let's face it, both political parties are chock full of authoritarian socialist politicians that suck, bad.

Neither of them were socialists. At all. Bush took the hit for furthering the direction of education initiated by Clinton. Clinton signed changes into law that directly effected welfare that were bizarre. Bush rode as close to a theocracy as one can get. As long as everyone forgets Charitable Choice. And Obama is a neoliberal.

No child left behind, isn't socialist? Expansion of Medicare, isn't socialist? Expansion of control over the Middle East, isn't authoritarian socialist? HUH? Bush was a leftist through and through, maybe a bit to the right of Obama but that's not saying much.

Nope. NCLB isn't/ wasn't mandated. The states have more control then they ........pretend to. Medicare may be considered a wee bit socialist. Expansion of control over the Middle East isn't even close to authoritarian or any other socialist and Bush was about as far right as one can get.

Do you remember when the first round of the religious right hit the Republicans? Well, a lot of people left to the Democrats. Not because the Democrats represented liberal but because the Republicans had gone way too far right. They had money then. Democrats are Republican-lite.