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

[PaintMyHouse]

Please explain without calling names why having a sign up is such a bad idea. How is that a bad thing?

Having a sign up will hurt their business. People will see that here is a merchant who does not believe in equal rights.

But by not having a sign warning customers of their policy, the business can go on discriminating without the public blow back.

I'd like to see two stickers around a lot. The We Don't Discriminate on the store windows, and the This Person Buys From Bigots slapped on the car bumpers of those who do.

The later would be a illegal, moron. Store owners are free to put whatever sign the like in their windows. That is, they are for the moment.

The latter would be the fun part. Believe me, if you don't bake cakes for fags everyone is about to know it and that is not going to be good for business in the long run. While the Jesusfreaks may flock to buy cupcakes in the beginning, the corporate guys will ask for their orders to come in unmarked boxes and soon after stop calling period. That's what put good old Melissa out of business.

 

[Lakhota]

Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

WASHINGTON -- Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) will sign an executive order on Monday barring state-funded travel to Indiana because of the state's new law that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.

More: Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

Thank you, Governor Malloy, for sending a clear message to these Indiana bigots.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This what happens to a Christian who caters a gay wedding:

Now do you understand the law ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

WASHINGTON -- Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) will sign an executive order on Monday barring state-funded travel to Indiana because of the state's new law that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.

More: Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

Thank you, Governor Malloy, for sending a clear message to these Indiana bigots.

Nice. Hit 'em where it counts, in the wallet.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why he not just be honest and say this is a law that makes discrimination of gays legal and that's what the law is designed for. Instead he is skirting the question. Why not just be perfectly honest.

If you were being honest you would understand the issue is about freedom of religion and not discrimination.

However, that doesn't fit into the Moon Bat hate religion narrative. Just like "hands up don't shoot" wasn't the truth in the Moon Bat narrative of Black victimization.

Let's talk about religious freedom. What harm comes to Christians by providing the exact same services to gay couples? How is the Christian merchant's ability to practice his faith infringed? Does serving gays as they woul.d serve others impart some undue restriction on their right to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?

How are Christians harmed?

It's a violation of their conscience. Isnt that obvious?

Their conscience as Christians will be offended? By not treating others as they themselves would be treated is a violation of Christian ethics? By judging others, are they following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Sorry but who are you to dictate what Christian faith consists of?

You're right of course. I'm not a thelogian. I was taught what Jesus said, i.e. Judge not lest ye be judged and He who is without sin shall cast the first stone and love your neighbor as you would love yourself. I must have confused those teachings with what the emminent theolgians in some so-called Christian circles who seem to believe that Jesus said all the aformentioned and added everything applies, but not to Gays.

I'm sorry for my confusion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one has a right to be served, numskull.

No one ever said such a 'right' existed.

But government is authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate markets, including prohibiting discrimination with regard to public accommodations, as such discrimination is disruptive to the local market and all other interrelated markets. See: Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Moreover, business owners may not claim a 'religious exemption' with regard to complying with state or local public accommodations laws, because the primary intent of the laws is regulatory, not to interfere with 'religious liberty'; business owners are no different than anyone else, they must obey just and proper laws just like everyone else. See: Employment Division v. Smith (1990), City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

 

[Lakhota]

What would happen if a business refused to serve a busload of NFL football players because most of them were black?

 

[bripat9643]

This is what The Tea Party Religionist are really after...the Right to be blatant racists with impunity with legal protection ....

The Bill of rights protects your right to be a racist, you stupid baboon. That's what Freedom of Speech and freedom of association are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

THE RABBI SAID:

“It's a violation of their conscience. Isnt that obvious?”

What's obvious is that public accommodations laws are not a 'violation' of anyone's conscience.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory, just and proper measures whose sole intent is to regulate commerce, not 'violate' religious practice. That some might perceive public accommodations laws as 'violating' religious liberty is subjective and incorrect.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is what The Tea Party Religionist are really after...the Right to be blatant racists with impunity with legal protection ....

The Bill of rights protects your right to be a racist, you stupid baboon. That's what Freedom of Speech and freedom of association are.

And you are allowed to be a racist, but we, society, sets the rules that businesses must follow. The business does not attend church, nor is it one. The No ******* church is allowed, the No ******* gas station is not. That is the reality, that you of course reject.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"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.

 

[Kondor3]

Yep those tolerate freedom loving progressives only say it is freedom if they can force you to do something against your will.

Most equal rights/anti-discrimination legislation is designed to make people do something against their will.

True... like forcing people to associate with the sexual deviants and perverts we call the LGBT community...

Like not letting you kick the colored people out of your restaurant.

Why would anyone want to kick good, decent 'colored folk' out of a restaurant?

Sexual deviants and perverts, on the other hand...?

 

[Nosmo King]

"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.

Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice.

 

[Kondor3]

"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.

Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice.

Nobody gives a rat's ass how a Sexual Deviant or a Sexual Pervert (LGBT) got that way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"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.

Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice.

In most, but not all, cases.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"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.

Sexual orientation si an immutable trait, not a choice.

Nobody gives a rat's ass how a Sexual Deviant or a Sexual Pervert (LGBT) got that way.

Actually, that's an important field of study. Some of them, not your average gay person however, do a lot of damage.

 

[Flash]

Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

WASHINGTON -- Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) will sign an executive order on Monday barring state-funded travel to Indiana because of the state's new law that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.

More: Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

Thank you, Governor Malloy, for sending a clear message to these Indiana bigots.

A bunch of stupid ass Democrat Connecticut bureaucrats won't be going to Indiana. Sounds good to me.

It looks like the bill is having a very positive outcome.

Fewer queers and fewer Moon Bats in the state. We need to get one of those bills passed here in Florida.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep those tolerate freedom loving progressives only say it is freedom if they can force you to do something against your will.

Most equal rights/anti-discrimination legislation is designed to make people do something against their will.

True... like forcing people to associate with the sexual deviants and perverts we call the LGBT community...

Like not letting you kick the colored people out of your restaurant.

Why would anyone want to kick good, decent 'colored folk' out of a restaurant?

Sexual deviants and perverts, on the other hand...?

Those who believe their version of Christianity believes in racial separation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

WASHINGTON -- Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) will sign an executive order on Monday barring state-funded travel to Indiana because of the state's new law that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.

More: Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

Thank you, Governor Malloy, for sending a clear message to these Indiana bigots.

A bunch of stupid ass Democrat Connecticut bureaucrats won't be going to Indiana. Sounds good to me.

It looks like the bill is having a very positive outcome.

Fewer queers and fewer Moon Bats in the state. We need to get one of those bills passed here in Florida.

Please do, the lawyers will be thrilled.