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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So as a lifelong married hetero white Male, explain how gays are a threat to me or the nation.

Are there any consequences of normalizing mental disorder, which you might find as a threat to you and your nation?

Say... Pilots. Should the mentally disordered be disqualified from piloting aircraft? See any danger in THAT?

I can probably dig up a citation which shows recent examples of why such represents a threat, if ya need it.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, but a wedding is. OR did you miss that part?
There is no impact on the freedom of others. The lesbian couple in Oregon were free to hire anyone else they wanted.

So baking a cake is not a religious act, but a wedding is.

Are bakers participating in the wedding, given that the axct of baking is not a religious rite?

They are participating by enablign the wedding.
You're just not real swift here, are you?

Is it their stock in trade, enabling weddings? Does that also involve making moral judgments? Does it involve some bizarre type of mercantile imperator? Just how offended can these alleged Christian wedding vendors get? What about servicing a Jewish affair? A Hindu wedding? An Appalachian sibling marriage?

Did Christ Himself invoke a prohibition, or are these bigots simply wrapping themselves in a thin veneer of righteousness for legal cover?

Are you being an obtuse moron? Why, yes you are.
The bakers felt they were condonign the wedding by baking a cake for it. THat is their right. Or should be. You want to bake cakes for gay wedding, go right ahead. No one is stopping you.

I'm borrowing a page from the playbook of one of your heroes, Rush Limbaugh. I'm pointing out the absurdity with absurdity.

Funny how that

Your admission of defeat here is acknowledged. And, s0n, you're no Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... i'm no moonbat. but i'm also not a bigot. you know... the type of person who thinks its ok to exclude a group of people because of the color of their skin or [unsound sexual-behavior].

Discriminating against unsound behavior is literally an essential trait of the genetically viable.

but your extremist determination as to what is sound, isn't anyone's problem but your own.

again... get over it.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

but your extremist determination as to what is sound, isn't anyone's problem but your own.

again... get over it.

While your party is dedicated to the eradication of civil liberties and you won't grasp this, that is the point. What is sound or not is exactly a personal decision, and NO ONE is obligated to celebrate your decision. What you of the left demand is that the religious convictions of some be crushed in celebration of the sexual choices of others.

When this was reversed, and the religious demanded that the state crush the sexual choices of some, I defended the homosexuals - they have the right to make their own choice.

Now this has reversed, and the homosexuals seek to crush the religious rights of some - naturally you of the left weigh in to crush liberty. as you are authoritarian by nature. But I stand consistent and point out that the identical arguments of individual choice are present on either side of the coin.

Homosexuals have right to have sex with any consenting adult in their own home, without fear of reprisal from the state, I will always support this.

Religious people have the right to worship the god of their choice and follow the teachings, without fear of reprisal from the state. You demand they be denied this.

All people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they choose, no one has a right to force a buyer to purchase from a merchant he objects to. No one, not the oligarchs of your party nor the homosexuals, have the right to force a merchant to sell to buyers he objects to. Laws which force either are immoral and fall into the same category as Dred Scott, laws that defy civil rights.

You won't agree, I support civil rights and you are dedicated to ending them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

we know what the answer is. pence saying it or not is irrelevant. and they're cowards, so why would they answer?

Pence is on the opposite side of you and your party.

Pence is defending civil liberty and the Bill of Rights, you demagogues are dedicated to eradicating both.

Pence is defending another BIG LIE. It is what Rightest thrive on, for the truth is there hidden agenda is out in the open for all reasonable and empathetic humans to see. The "restoration" is no different than the "big tent" and "compassionate conservative" fabrications - remember it's not what a Rightest says or writes, it's what they do.

Also, look at the commonality of those who support Pence, to the person they all lack compassion, empathy and are members of the Callous Conservative Coalition.

WhT "LIE" do you think Pence is defending? Because it was the same lie Obama voted for as state senator.

Gee, another parroted phrase by another mentally challenged parrot.

Nuance is a concept only the higher animal brain can comprehend; it seems the conservative parrots not only lack empathy, but the inability to differentiate the slight variation between nearly identical items. Thus even openly hidden agendas escape their understanding, and they continue to repeat the same banalities on this and on so many other issues.

 

[The Rabbi]

we know what the answer is. pence saying it or not is irrelevant. and they're cowards, so why would they answer?

Pence is on the opposite side of you and your party.

Pence is defending civil liberty and the Bill of Rights, you demagogues are dedicated to eradicating both.

Pence is defending another BIG LIE. It is what Rightest thrive on, for the truth is there hidden agenda is out in the open for all reasonable and empathetic humans to see. The "restoration" is no different than the "big tent" and "compassionate conservative" fabrications - remember it's not what a Rightest says or writes, it's what they do.

Also, look at the commonality of those who support Pence, to the person they all lack compassion, empathy and are members of the Callous Conservative Coalition.

WhT "LIE" do you think Pence is defending? Because it was the same lie Obama voted for as state senator.

Gee, another parroted phrase by another mentally challenged parrot.

Nuance is a concept only the higher animal brain can comprehend; it seems the conservative parrots not only lack empathy, but the inability to differentiate the slight variation between nearly identical items. Thus even openly hidden agendas escape their understanding, and they continue to repeat the same banalities on this and on so many other issues.

Your inability to answer the question is noted.
Do you ever get tired of making shit up?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

but your extremist determination as to what is sound, isn't anyone's problem but your own.

again... get over it.

While your party is dedicated to the eradication of civil liberties and you won't grasp this, that is the point. What is sound or not is exactly a personal decision, and NO ONE is obligated to celebrate your decision. What you of the left demand is that the religious convictions of some be crushed in celebration of the sexual choices of others.

When this was reversed, and the religious demanded that the state crush the sexual choices of some, I defended the homosexuals - they have the right to make their own choice.

Now this has reversed, and the homosexuals seek to crush the religious rights of some - naturally you of the left weigh in to crush liberty. as you are authoritarian by nature. But I stand consistent and point out that the identical arguments of individual choice are present on either side of the coin.

Homosexuals have right to have sex with any consenting adult in their own home, without fear of reprisal from the state, I will always support this.

Religious people have the right to worship the god of their choice and follow the teachings, without fear of reprisal from the state. You demand they be denied this.

All people have the right to engage in commerce with whom they choose, no one has a right to force a buyer to purchase from a merchant he objects to. No one, not the oligarchs of your party nor the homosexuals, have the right to force a merchant to sell to buyers he objects to. Laws which force either are immoral and fall into the same category as Dred Scott, laws that defy civil rights.

You won't agree, I support civil rights and you are dedicated to ending them.

"the homosexuals seek to crush the religious rights of some -"

It's Classic demonstration of disordered cognition. Not far flung from any other usurpation of the rights of others.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nuance is a concept only the higher animal brain can comprehend...

ROFLMNAO!
I SO adore the sweeter ironies...

 

[RKMBrown]

Did anyone see Pence dancing around it when asked if the law makes it possible for businesses to discriminate against gays? It was on Fox and he was asked over and over but refused to answer.

The question being asked had nothing to do with the law that was passed. The question was the modern equivalent of a have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no, question.

They are asking the Governor to make a definitive statement regarding a matter of law. If you don't know why a governor of a state would not make a "definitive statement regarding a matter of law" then there is no helping you.

The Governor explained what the law is about, what it is for and who has already passed nearly identical versions.

The what if is asking if there is any possibility whatsoever that someone could try to use the right to petition a government when the government attacks a person by trying to force that person to do something that is against his religion. For example, trying to force hobby lobby to pay for abortions.

He responded that this law has never been used to do that and that is not the purpose of the law. The asshole wanted a yes or no can someone use this law to beat on gays.

Hell you can use the FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISCRIMINATE ON GAYS.

BY THIS MEASURE WE NEED TO REDACT THE FIRST AMENDMENT CAUSE THOSE ASSHOLES THAT WROTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT DID IT IN A WAY THAT GAYS COULD BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST USING THE LAW. IT'S AN ASININE ARGUMENT.

 

[initforme]

" aRE there any consequences of normalizing mental disorder, which you might find as a threat to you and your nation."

So its a mental disorder? Are you a doctor? Gays are zero threat to me. I like less gov't interference so therefore what 2 consenting adults do is of no threat to me. Perhaps being a tea party wacko is a mental disorder as well then.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Tim Cook: ‘Religious freedom’ laws are dangerous and bad for business

Tim Cook

“On behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation.”

**** Apple.

Just one more reason to never buy their shit.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

a little nostalgia for you Right wingers

 

[RKMBrown]

No matter how the story gets spinned. Some people are going to be made to feel uncomfortable and embarrassed when they are refused service and a very small minority of religious folks will feel they have made a great accomplishment. The citizens of Indiana, especially workers and small business owners will pay the real price. How many will suffer and to what extent is unknown. Time will tell.

No. This bill has nothing to do with public access. The libs are lying.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Would you care to explain how you see such to be of sound cognition? It's a rationalization which holds as reasonable, desires to seek sexual gratification from those of their own gender. This despite such a 'choice' being a full 180 degree deviation from the design of their own body. (It doesn't GET more disordered than THAT.)

I'll be here for ya.

One thing I've learned over the long years of my life is that people engage in vice. If engaging in vice is deviant, then the 99% of people who smoke, drink, gamble, go to prostitutes, watch porno, are all deviants.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pence is defending another BIG LIE.

Ah, so the 1st Amendment is a "lie?"

I understand, "truth" is that which serves the party. All that doesn't serve the party is a "lie."

It is what Rightest thrive on, for the truth is there hidden agenda is out in the open for all reasonable and empathetic humans to see. The "restoration" is no different than the "big tent" and "compassionate conservative" fabrications - remember it's not what a Rightest says or writes, it's what they do.

Also, look at the commonality of those who support Pence, to the person they all lack compassion, empathy and are members of the Callous Conservative Coalition.

You of the anti-Liberty left are in full meltdown in your war on civil rights.

The harder you try, the more ridiculous you become.

Let's compare two events:

1. A 19 your old women learns she is pregnant an goes to a clinic for an abortion. She is told she must wait 24 hours and must see a film showing an abortion, and both see an unltrasound of the fetus and listen to its heartbeat;
2. A 19 year old women working the counter of a bakery is asked to prepare a wedding cake for two women who are happy to announce they will soon be. married.

Well?

 

[Wry Catcher]

IS there some reason that mental disorder should not be compared to mental disorder?

What would that reason be? Specifically...?

You think homosexuality is a mental disorder?

Would you care to explain how you see such to be of sound cognition? It's a rationalization which holds as reasonable, desires to seek sexual gratification from those of their own gender. This despite such a 'choice' being a full 180 degree deviation from the design of their own body. (It doesn't GET more disordered than THAT.)

I'll be here for ya.

Your bigotry is belied by facts, why not find a new hobby, one wherein you won't expose yourself as an ignoramus.

Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality Yale Scientific Magazine

 

[Uncensored2008]

The harder you try, the more ridiculous you become.

Brought to us by the one who claims the 1st Amendment is a "big lie."

What you lack in credibility, you make up for in entertainment value.

Let's compare two events:

1. A 19 your old women learns she is pregnant an goes to a clinic for an abortion. She is told she must wait 24 hours and must see a film showing an abortion, and both see an unltrasound of the fetus and listen to its heartbeat;
2. A 19 year old women working the counter of a bakery is asked to prepare a wedding cake for two women who are happy to announce they will soon be. married.

Well?

I assume you are drunk to the point of near black out....

 

[guno]

a little nostalgia for you Right wingers

They so miss the old days

 

[Londoner]

Reagan opened his official presidential campaign in Mississippi with a speech castigating the federal government for destroying Jim Crow and undermining Southern autonomy (which wanted laws and institutions that forced blacks to the back of the bus). I don't think Reagan was a racist any more than Pence is a homophobe. Both men were feeding the unfortunate coalitions the GOP built to break the New Deal and transfer government resources from the middle class to the corporate elite.

To create a wide coalition of voters, the GOP targeted the poor with religion and patriotism, with a heavy emphasis on Dog Whistle racism to get southern Dixiecrats to vote Republican.

In fact, it was the Southern Strategy, initiated by Goldwater, Wallace & Nixon, which finally, in 1980, flipped the Solid South and created the Reagan movement, which movement started with a promise of fiscal responsibility and small government, but - ironically - climaxed under Bush's 2008 Meltdown and his Surveillance State (illegal wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc.).

(Side note: The GOP's post-Watergate ascendancy targeted well-meaning but under-educated patriots who don't even know what the Southern Strategy was. Nor do they know the political and cultural differences between Hussein and Bin Laden, or how the CIAs removal of Mossedeq in Iran merely strengthened Islamic radicalism. In short, the GOP - desperate to break the 45 year ascent of the New Deal - harvested a voting coalition that was uniquely uneducated, and easily seduced by a very transparent culture war, which used values, race and fear to pry unwitting democrat voters away from what had become a bloated and ineffectual Democratic Machine, one that traded traditional working class issues for gender, race and lifestyle politics. The minute the Left aligned itself with bra burners, anti war hippies and black panthers, the Right had the opening to unite a massive and diverse coalition of voters, from northern Catholic workers to white suburbanites and Southern gun owners. The history of how voting coalitions have shifted and evolved is very interesting indeed.)

 

[Londoner]

Reagan opened his official presidential campaign in Mississippi with a speech castigating the federal government for destroying Jim Crow and undermining Southern autonomy (which wanted laws and institutions that forced blacks to the back of the bus). I don't think Reagan was a racist any more than Pence is a homophobe. Both men were feeding the unfortunate coalitions the GOP built to break the New Deal and transfer government resources from the middle class to the corporate elite.

To create a wide coalition of voters, the GOP targeted the poor with religion and patriotism, with a heavy emphasis on Dog Whistle racism to get southern Dixiecrats to vote Republican.

In fact, it was the Southern Strategy, initiated by Goldwater, Wallace & Nixon, which finally, in 1980, flipped the Solid South and created the Reagan movement, which movement started with a promise of fiscal responsibility and small government, but - ironically - climaxed under Bush's 2008 Meltdown and his Surveillance State (illegal wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc.).

(Side note: The GOP's post-Watergate ascendancy targeted well-meaning but under-educated patriots who didn't (and still don't) know what the Southern Strategy was. Nor do they know the political and cultural differences between Hussein and Bin Laden, or how the CIAs removal of Mossedeq in Iran merely strengthened Islamic radicalism. In short, the GOP - desperate to break the 45 year ascent of the New Deal - harvested a voting coalition that was uniquely uneducated, and easily seduced by a very transparent culture war, which used values, race and fear to pry unwitting democrat voters away from what had become a bloated and ineffectual Democratic Machine, one that traded traditional working class issues for gender, race and lifestyle politics. The minute the Left aligned itself with bra burners, anti war hippies and black panthers, the Right had the opening to unite a massive and diverse coalition of voters, from northern Catholic workers to white suburbanites and Southern gun owners. The history of how voting coalitions have shifted and evolved is very interesting indeed.)