T1B

If the market were, at any one point in time, "level" then you would have an argument for the market sorting it out. That's why AA was/is needed, to right past wrongs.

As for what is a religion, all religions are made up, despite puptent's assertions to the contrary. The questions are A) how long has it been around, B) how many people follow it and C) how nutty is it? The more A&B you have the the less of C= it's more likely to be seen as a religion. On a not unrelated note did you see Going Clear on HBO?

88 has a pretty good take on it, per usualm.

IMO, in the private sector, people should be as free as possible to do business with whomever they want. You wanna open a popsicle stand that sells only to 5th generation or better methodists, good for you. The only exception I would make is in cases where a person can show that an undue hardship is put on them when someone refuses to do business with them. A good example may be you own the only grocery store in a small town. A citizen of that town could show an undue hardship put upon them if they had to drive 50 miles to buy a loaf of bread because you didn't want to sell to nig..... uhhhh people of color.

And you are correct that this right to be a douche should not extend to the public sector at all.

Will this result in people having their feelings hurt? Sure it would, but, it is better than what we have today, which is PC tyranny.

Moving Sale wrote:If the market were, at any one point in time, "level" then you would have an argument for the market sorting it out. That's why AA was/is needed, to right past wrongs.

As for what is a religion, all religions are made up, despite puptent's assertions to the contrary. The questions are A) how long has it been around, B) how many people follow it and C) how nutty is it? The more A&B you have the the less of C= it's more likely to be seen as a religion. On a not unrelated note did you see Going Clear on HBO?

So, just what is a religion is a bit foggy, then?

I agree.

That is why the only sensible and fair way to handle it, is for the government to get the fukk out of the way. Let people interact with whom they chose and NOT interact with whom they chose as well.

Moving Sale,

When Jeb Bush got rid of affirmative action for enrollment in state run schools back in 99, or 2000, and 5 thousand people (who left 4 tons of trash along the road. Nice huh?) marched to the capital building to hear Jesse Jackson and Dick fucking Gregory spout their vile, racist venom, guess what happened to the minority enrollment at FSU and ALL Florida universities?

It went up. By like 15%.

Basically, go screw yourself.

I mean that in the nicest way, though.

Oh, and Going Clear was excellent. But, like all cults like the mormons and jehovas witness, it's ALL!!!!!!!! about the cayshe.

And btw, the lowest of charity givers by political beliefs are left wing liberals. Look it up.

Here is what I don't understand about the reaction by so many to this legislation.

The United States has almost the exact same law on the books since 1993. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer D-NY, it passed the House unanimously, and only had 3 votes against it in the Senate. It was then signed by Bill Clinton.

When courts decided this law didn't apply to states, many passed legislation to cover their state. Included in that was Illinois and a certain legislator named B. Obama who voted for the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

If these laws were "the right thing to do" when Dems authored and passed them, why are they not ok today?

Further why aren't these businesses that are calling on Indiana to change their law, also calling on the US to change its law?

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:...left wing liberals.

My people know that terms like "left wing liberals" is just anti-Semitic code for "kikes".

You should be 1/16th ashamed of yourself.

88 wrote:...the Morman religion and its strange criminal history.

ftfy

Left Seater wrote:Here is what I don't understand about the reaction by so many to this legislation.

The United States has almost the exact same law on the books since 1993. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer D-NY, it passed the House unanimously, and only had 3 votes against it in the Senate. It was then signed by Bill Clinton.

When courts decided this law didn't apply to states, many passed legislation to cover their state. Included in that was Illinois and a certain legislator named B. Obama who voted for the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

If these laws were "the right thing to do" when Dems authored and passed them, why are they not ok today?

Further why aren't these businesses that are calling on Indiana to change their law, also calling on the US to change its law?

Care to explain what this 'similar" federal law was? Any particulars that would actually resemble the Indiana measure?

The bigotry against gay people is perhaps the most cowardly and ignorant of all. That is, while it is somewhat understandable for a group or culture to not like another group who is in fact different and so forth--a different color or language--the fact is that gays are part of every group, of every social level, and have been so for all time. Moreover, that the only proscription against this is derived from the Old Testament is reflective of the ignorance and intolerance that informs homophobia.

The initial 1993 act does not in any way suggest or allow depriving one of their basic constitutional rights. And since discrimination against gays has been determined to be unconstitutional, i.e., participation in the military, etc., the Indiana law will be reversed quicker than the Marvin Gaye Blurred Lines decision.

Do you suppose it's legal to discriminate against people based on race? Religion? So...why sexual orientation?

Why would anyone think this (Christo-Nazi) stunt will last more than a month or two? Just think who's behind it?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Just think who's behind it?

Israel and American Jews ???

At least LTS is consistent in his stupidity.

The Indiana law speaks to state or local government action preventing the excercise of religion.

Synopsis: Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

So where again does the Indiana law allow for discrimination against gays?

Once again you are just regurgitating something you heard that sounded good, but has zero basis in facts.

C'mon, fakeseat, if the law entails discrimination, such discrimination as has been deemed unconstitutional (and ignorant and bigoted), it will be struck down. Just like the Jim Crow laws, and the biblical based "sodomy" laws, interracial marriage, etc. What exactly are you clinging to, or pretending to defend?

The State wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Just think who's behind it?

Israel and American Jews ???

No, asshole--that's your official new name--in fact Israel has extremely liberal laws concerning gays, the insane orthodox contingent excepted.

As for the American Jews, are you kidding? A popular--and witty--graffiti printed all over S.F. several years ago read "Kill All Non-Jewish Dykes"

No, this is strictly the Christo-Nazi huddled and frightened corn-belt lunatics.

That said, agitation and social unrest is a constant of the AIPAC agenda.

And remember, most of the staunch right-wing Family Values GOP stalwarts are total closeted gays. Not just J. Edgar Hoover. Not just Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum. Not Just Ted Cruz. Not just Karl Rove. Not just GW Bush. Not just Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. Not just Tom Cotton.

Lot's more. Isn't it weird? Isn't it twisted that these utterly failed public officials, whose policies have resulted in catastrophe, should be the very thing they insist on attacking?

88 wrote:My primary problem with the assertions made by those who wish to object to treating others equally on religious grounds is: What constitutes an acceptable religious belief? Can the KKK form a new religion tomorrow that says "it is our firm religious belief that our God hates black people, and his rules prohibits us from doing any services for them, or selling them real property, or allowing them to attend schools with our children etc."? How far do we let the make-believers make their beliefs disconnect from our laws? In other words, how should the courts decide if an asserted religious view is sufficiently legitimate enough to permit those who claim to practice it the ability to play a get-out-of-being-an-asshole free card?

I find it astonishing that a supposed freedom-advocate is actually asking this.
Just the fact that someone like you is entertaining ridiculous bullshit nazi rhetoric -----> is evidence that they are winning.

People in Amerika have (supposedly) absolute freedom to obey their own faith conscience.

They also have freedom to be an asshole.


Yw

LTS TRN 2 wrote:discrimination against gays has been determined to be unconstitutional, i.e., participation in the military, etc.

Way to be a retard, with your complete inability to distinguish between restrictions that the government can engage in, and a private citizen.

Guess what? You don't have a right to free speech in my house. Say something offensive (to me), and I'll ask you to leave ("Hi, my name it LTS" would be an example). In a public park, government employees can do no such thing.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's pretty black-and-white shit.

I like Indiana's law. At no point in our history has anyone had a "right" to enter your premises when they weren't wanted (without probable cause or warrant or whatsuch). Since when does anyone's "right" to do business with you trump the right to one's castle?

That's some fucked up shit.

I believe a business should be allowed to refuse service/entry to anyone, based on anything. And if they did, say for example, refuse service/entry to an African-American, I'd be offended, and help publicize the slight, and help put the place out of business.

Funny how the Free Market works when the government gets out of the way... has for thousands of years.

Are you kidding? Are you suggesting that Indiana businesses--those institutions and corporations and mom and pop stores, whatever-- have the right to decide they won't do business with someone because of the customer's race,religion,sexual orientation, or sports team affiliation? Are you suggesting the Indiana law pertains only to private homes and business conducted there?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Are you suggesting the Indiana law pertains only to private homes and business conducted there?

I'm not suggesting it -- I'm stating it as fact.

We have that Constitution thingy.

Dinsdale wrote:
I believe a business should be allowed to refuse service/entry to anyone, based on anything. And if they did, say for example, refuse service/entry to an African-American, I'd be offended, and help publicize the slight, and help put the place out of business.

Funny how the Free Market works when the government gets out of the way... has for thousands of years.

Name one government that has ever ignored business. And the problem with your theory is, as I have stated, the field is not level.

Jsc wrote:But it may be constitutional. I'll have to do some reading before I make a constitutional call one way or another. In any event, the law is wrong.

Jsc wrote:What I am looking forward to is seeing the reaction of the supporters of the legislation when the unintended consequences start happening. Gosh, it won't be just white Christians utilizing the law, there will be Muslims and Satanists and G0D knows who else who will want their particular religious freedom. And I will laugh.

So frightening.
The country has only been operating on the principle for 200+ years.
lol

We'll all be just fine this way.

Dinsdale wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Are you suggesting the Indiana law pertains only to private homes and business conducted there?

I'm not suggesting it -- I'm stating it as fact.

We have that Constitution thingy.

Are you totally drunk all the time?

This exact sort of (Christo-Nazi) insanity has been regularly shot down and ground unto paste.

My question is why? Why would anyone want to actively celebrate their cowardly bigotry? Why would they so desperately need to demonstrate their cringing fear?

What's really going on here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uoyj8MpeI (keep rockin')

Why would anyone anywhere be uncomfortable with other people being gay?

Are you keeping kosher, Dims? Is your hot-plate on?


Please, explain as best you can this horribly embarrassing incident for the GOP (Christo-Nazi axis) of Indiana.

:P

Jsc wrote:The law is a pretext. And that is wrong, discrimination is wrong.

The law is a "pretext" for maintaining LIBERTY -- which the fag nazis want so very badly to eliminate.

You are what's known as an enabler.


Sad.

poptart wrote:

Jsc wrote:The law is a pretext. And that is wrong, discrimination is wrong.

The law is a "pretext" for maintaining LIBERTY -- which the fag nazis want so very badly to eliminate.

You are what's known as an enabler.

Oh, Jsc is something more than a fag enabler.
He's a fascism enabler.

Understand, we fought wars to be free from people who think as he does.

Dins has it right. One's business is every bit as much one's "castle" as his home is.

It is better that people be free to be assholes, so long as they are not directly harming others, than it is to have government enforce niceness, simply because, governments over the course of history have proven....and proven...and fukking proven again, that they will abuse the ability to tell people what to do.

It really is that fukking simple. Government is a necessary evil. Its leash must be kept as short as possible. That a-hole AG in Washington State is a perfect example. You know, the one that has decided to ruin a little old lady because she told a customer, she couldn't do flowers for his wedding.

And to lets turd, yes, the playing field of life is not particularly level.

Tough fukking shit.

Who defines level? How is he going to make it level?

These are the basic fukking questions that asshole PC fascists don't want to ask.

Jsc810 wrote:This has nothing to do with religious freedom, and everything to do with trying to discriminate against homosexuals.

And that is fucked up.

But it may be constitutional. I'll have to do some reading before I make a constitutional call one way or another. In any event, the law is wrong.

What I am looking forward to is seeing the reaction of the supporters of the legislation when the unintended consequences start happening. Gosh, it won't be just white Christians utilizing the law, there will be Muslims and Satanists and G0D knows who else who will want their particular religious freedom. And I will laugh.

Maybe you should do your reading before you do any typing. Otherwise you look like Nicky and you are too smart for that.

Had you done any reading you would know that Muslims and American Indians have sued using this type of law in far greater numbers proportionaly to their population numbers. Had you done your reading before typing you would know that 19 states have already passed a similar law after courts deemed the 1993 law only applies to the U.S. and not states. Ad you done any reading before typing you would see reference to State and local government in the Indiana law and nothing about individuals or businesses.

When you do do your reading let us know how this law in Indiana is different from the US law and from the 19 others laws passed by states. Let us know why this law is wrong and the Democratic passed ones aren't.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: The bigotry against gay people is perhaps the most cowardly and ignorant of all.

So why would you want to force such a person to bake your gay wedding cake in the first place, Felchie? Wouldn't you rather send your business to someone more sensitive to your requirements? And aren't you supporting their "hateful and bigoted" views when you give them your hard earned cash for your special occasion?

Of course that is the bare hypocrisy behind homo-fascism masquerading as "tolerance."

Cake?

Jsc810 wrote:This has nothing to do with religious freedom, and everything to do with trying to discriminate against homosexuals.

And that is fucked up.

Why do you hate freedom, you handwringing pussy?

What I am looking forward to is seeing the reaction of the supporters of the legislation when the unintended consequences start happening. Gosh, it won't be just white Christians utilizing the law, there will be Muslims and Satanists and G0D knows who else who will want their particular religious freedom. And I will laugh.

You mean I won't be able to get bacon at a kosher deli? Oh wait....nevermind.

The horror!!

And it still isn't legal in Indiana.


Good gawd, read more, type less.

You can't get a ham sandwich at a kosher deli and you can't get a cake for a gay wedding at (some) Christian bakers. What's the big hairy fucking deal?

Jsc810 wrote: That is discrimination and it is wrong.

So fuck off and don't shop there. Oh wait, you can't. That would be discrimination based on your personal bias. Maybe you should just settle for fucking off.

Here is a simple question for Jsc or Nicky:

Provide one documented example where a religious Freedom Restoration Law was used to deny service to a gay person or couple.

Left Seater wrote:Here is a simple question for Jsc or Nicky:

Provide one documented example where a religious Freedom Restoration Law was used to deny service to a gay person or couple.

And if they did? Are you trying to kick your own ass?

No it was an honest question. I was able to find 25 plus uses of these laws to help prisoners, American Indians, Muslims, and religions I had never heard of in about 5 seconds. I have yet to find a single instance where one of these laws directed a court to uphold a business owner refusing service to gays.

There may actually be a case and I would like to see it. But they will also find that these laws are pretty much the exact opposite of what they are claiming they are.

Left Seater wrote:No it was an honest question. I was able to find 25 plus uses of these laws to help prisoners, American Indians, Muslims, and religions I had never heard of in about 5 seconds. I have yet to find a single instance where one of these laws directed a court to uphold a business owner refusing service to gays.

There may actually be a case and I would like to see it. But they will also find that these laws are pretty much the exact opposite of what they are claiming they are.

Oh, they are exactly what they are claiming they are. They simply wildly exaggerate the impact it will have. Yes, this law will certainly allow a Christian florist to send homos packing ( ). The proper response to that is, "So what?"

Needless to say, any such discrimination is inherently self-limiting but business owners should absolutely enjoy the freedom to cater their business to a small niche clientele if they so choose.

mvscal wrote: Oh, they are exactly what they are claiming they are. They simply wildly exaggerate the impact it will have. Yes, this law will certainly allow a Christian florist to send homos packing

Agreed they wildly exaggerate the impact, but I don't agree this give "get out of jail free" cards to any business that wants to not serve gays.


Interesting that the ACLU doesn't agree with them based on previous cases.

mvscal wrote:You can't get a ham sandwich at a kosher deli and you can't get a cake for a gay wedding at (some) Christian bakers.

Worst analogy ever. Who is the idiot that came up with this one?

Both refuse to provide service based on their religious beliefs. Tough shit for you if you don't like it.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:You can't get a ham sandwich at a kosher deli and you can't get a cake for a gay wedding at (some) Christian bakers.

Worst analogy ever. Who is the idiot that came up with this one?

Actually MS, the analogy is accurate. There have been a couple of stories in the new recently about bakeries not creating or selling a cake for a gay wedding. Of course, and stupidly, they are being sued. Hopefully, the courts will see the absolute frivolity of these suits.

Here is an example of this kind of stupidity.

In one complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

Sure, it's a fine line and laws vary from state to state, but suing over a cake is absolute idiocy.

Go find another baker and stop fucking suing.

Good grief. For the 20th time, the kosher deli would have to go out and get ham. The fucking "gay" cake ingredients are in the shop. Get a better analogy.

Moving Sale wrote:Good grief. For the 20th time, the kosher deli would have to go out and get ham. The fucking "gay" cake ingredients are in the shop. Get a better analogy.

So what?

Moving Sale wrote:Good grief. For the 20th time, the kosher deli would have to go out and get ham. The fucking "gay" cake ingredients are in the shop. Get a better analogy.

So what?