http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/m...ay-rights/

States will start to sign these bills more and more in the coming years. The backlash against the Gaystepo and their thuggish practices will tip the scales back in favor of liberty!

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is set to sign into law a measure that allows businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of "religious freedom."

The move comes as Pence considers a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination -- and just a year after Pence and socially conservative lawmakers lost their first policy battle against gay Hoosiers. In 2014 they had sought to amend Indiana's constitution to ban same-sex marriages -- but were beaten back by a highly-organized coalition of Democrats, traditionally right-leaning business organizations and fiscally focused supporters of Pence's predecessor, former GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels.

This year, though, the Republican-dominated state House and Senate both approved the "religious freedom" bill, and Pence plans to sign it into law in a private ceremony Thursday, his spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday afternoon.

If Pence decides to mount a dark horse presidential bid -- which looks increasingly unlikely as candidates like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker court the same supporters he would need -- the "religious freedom" bill could give him a boost among GOP primary voters, especially in socially conservative states like Iowa.

Pence understands we're supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

As a supporter of gay marriage, I support this as well.

(03-25-2015 10:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Pence understands we're supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

No, this was a bad move.

(03-26-2015 05:25 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 10:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Pence understands we're supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

No, this was a bad move.

Right we should just stand by as peoples business are shut down because they won't take part in a gay marriage..

(03-26-2015 06:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 05:25 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 10:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Pence understands we're supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

No, this was a bad move.

Right we should just stand by as peoples business are shut down because they won't take part in a gay marriage..

It's going to put the South and Indiana back though back through the looking glass of 1965 America for nothing. Let me be up front, it's trolling of the highest order when gays go out of their way to find the few christian bakers out there and make a request for a gay cake, just so they can take to trial when there are a plethora of other options available. But as a protected class homosexuals are entitled to leverage the same discrimination laws that were written for blacks and women.

(03-26-2015 08:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Let me be up front, it's trolling of the highest order when gays go out of their way to find the few christian bakers out there and make a request for a gay cake, just so they can take to trial when there are a plethora of other options available.

Trolling is usually just annoying and harmless. What's going on by the Gaystepo right now is setting legal precedent. It's hardly benign and needs to be nipped in the bud.

Quote:But as a protected class homosexuals are entitled to leverage the same discrimination laws that were written for blacks and women.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I just don't thing their legal protection should mean others lose religious liberty.. You know that whole "I can swing my fist until I hit your face thing"

(03-26-2015 09:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 08:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Let me be up front, it's trolling of the highest order when gays go out of their way to find the few christian bakers out there and make a request for a gay cake, just so they can take to trial when there are a plethora of other options available.

Trolling is usually just annoying and harmless. What's going on by the Gaystepo right now is setting legal precedent. It's hardly benign and needs to be nipped in the bud.

Quote:But as a protected class homosexuals are entitled to leverage the same discrimination laws that were written for blacks and women.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I just don't thing their legal protection should mean others lose religious liberty.. You know that whole "I can swing my fist until I hit your face thing"

The problem is that from a legal POV it's Christian's with the closed fist. The legal precedence was established 50 years ago and it will be impossible to overturn or even get exemptions. Tactically this isn't this battle should be waged. Much like I have to 'respect' the fact that it's OK for someone to burn an American flag, Christian's should have baked the caked and witnessed to them when they picked it up.

(03-26-2015 09:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The problem is that from a legal POV it's Christian's with the closed fist.

Ummm no. Don't buy into the baseless rhetoric of the left. Until 1997 a federal law protected religious rights of people. That law *IS STILL ON THE BOOKS* but in 1997 the SC changed the scope so that states had to pass their own.

Since then about three doxen states have added such lasws.

Quote:The legal precedence was established 50 years ago and it will be impossible to overturn or even get exemptions.

Again you are taking the lefts talking points and assuming them to be the truth. They are not denying service to a *person* they are dening service to a ceremony.

Take the woman in Washington who had a gay customer and for years provided him arrangements. Many birthdays valentines days, and other events for the man and his partner.

So they ask her to do their wedding. She politely says her faith wont let her. Now the states AG wants to take her business and home away from her.

Quote:Tactically this isn't this battle should be waged. Much like I have to 'respect' the fact that it's OK for someone to burn an American flag, Christian's should have baked the caked and witnessed to them when they picked it up.

Wow you are either a lefty in training or they have you twisted around..

Let's slightly reword that...

1 - I am ok if *SOMEONE ELSE* burns the flag so 2 - Im ok with someone else *MAKING YOU* Burn a flag.

(03-26-2015 09:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The problem is that from a legal POV it's Christian's with the closed fist.

Ummm no. Don't buy into the baseless rhetoric of the left. Until 1997 a federal law protected religious rights of people. That law *IS STILL ON THE BOOKS* but in 1997 the SC changed the scope so that states had to pass their own.

Since then about three doxen states have added such lasws.

Quote:The legal precedence was established 50 years ago and it will be impossible to overturn or even get exemptions.

Again you are taking the lefts talking points and assuming them to be the truth. They are not denying service to a *person* they are dening service to a ceremony.

Take the woman in Washington who had a gay customer and for years provided him arrangements. Many birthdays valentines days, and other events for the man and his partner.

So they ask her to do their wedding. She politely says her faith wont let her. Now the states AG wants to take her business and home away from her.

Quote:Tactically this isn't this battle should be waged. Much like I have to 'respect' the fact that it's OK for someone to burn an American flag, Christian's should have baked the caked and witnessed to them when they picked it up.

Wow you are either a lefty in training or they have you twisted around..

Let's slightly reword that...

1 - I am ok if *SOMEONE ELSE* burns the flag so 2 - Im ok with someone else *MAKING YOU* Burn a flag.

BIE, I think I've been on this board long enough to not be conflated with a democrat.

But I use the leftist talking points because that is how it will be argued in the courts and crafted by the media. The protest of a ceremony versus people is not going to fly when this thing eventually gets to the SCOTUS. Why do you think gays have been arguing that their plight is equivalent to that of blacks in this country for the past 20 years? Because the issue is going to hide under to skirt of the Civil Right's Act when it is brought to trial. Churches that discriminated against blacks couldn't hide behind 'religious reasons' for racial discrimination. Nor could businesses that did the same under the auspicious of 'health considerations.'

(03-26-2015 10:22 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  BIE, I think I've been on this board long enough to not be conflated with a democrat.

I never called you a democrat

Quote:But I use the leftist talking points because that is how it will be argued in the courts and crafted by the media.

The same can be said of any attempt to shrink government. So why do any of it?

Quote:The protest of a ceremony versus people is not going to fly when this thing eventually gets to the SCOTUS.

You don't know that. And this is a hill I'm willing to die on.

I don't care if two gay guys get married. I care if they try to use the state to force me to participate in said ceremony.

If you believe in a GOP to let that slide then you believe in a GOP I will never agin vote for. Because really it's nothing but a slow version of the progressives.

Shouldn't my religious freedom trump your right to a gay cake, especially if there are five bakeries within ten miles that will bake you a gay cake?

(03-27-2015 07:34 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Shouldn't my religious freedom trump your right to a gay cake, especially if there are five bakeries within ten miles that will bake you a gay cake?

I don't think I can overstate the importance of the Civil Rights Act and how the situation you describe in theory should be acceptable, but due to the actions of the nation 100 years ago, it is instead verboten.

(03-27-2015 08:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 07:34 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Shouldn't my religious freedom trump your right to a gay cake, especially if there are five bakeries within ten miles that will bake you a gay cake?

I don't think I can overstate the importance of the Civil Rights Act and how the situation you describe in theory should be acceptable, but due to the actions of the nation 100 years ago, it is instead verboten.

So punish the people today for the sins of their grandfathers?

You don't make up for past inequality by adding more inequality.

Why not bake the cake and then tell the weirdos to buy their own little plastic people to place atop their cake. There's no law that says you have to provide the figurines atop the cake. As a bakery just stay out of furnishing the figurines FOR EVERYONE. Problem solved.

(03-28-2015 01:50 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Why not bake the cake and then tell the weirdos to buy their own little plastic people to place atop their cake. There's no law that says you have to provide the figurines atop the cake. As a bakery just stay out of furnishing the figurines FOR EVERYONE. Problem solved.

Not all wedding cakes have the plastic people on top. The point is being forced to provide services for something against your religion.

It is a shame that gays simply don't respect the feelings of business owners and pushed this issue in the first place. Patronize the businesses that welcome you...stay out of the ones that don't. Problem solved.

(03-29-2015 08:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is a shame that gays simply don't respect the feelings of business owners and pushed this issue in the first place. Patronize the businesses that welcome you...stay out of the ones that don't. Problem solved.

*** THIS ***

When you target people who you disagree with and use the Government as your enforcer there is going to be some measure of push back.

Take a bunch of people who (1) accept gay marriage and (2) will leave you to your ends. Then show them stories about 70 year old grandmothers having their business and home threatened by the state of Washington for refusing to do one ceremony*.

This will push these people to say that maybe both sides need some protection from the other, and that is what has now happened in 20 states.

* the real telling part of the Washington case is that this woman *DID* provide service to the guy and his boyfriend in the past. She did so knowing they were gay but they never asked her to violate her religious beliefs. So you can't play the "she hate gays is homophobic" card.

This law is necessary to protect individuals and the businesses they own from vindictive State AG's like in California. I just love the way the news reports this, basically saying "Since gay marriage became legal in Indiana Republican law makers felt this was necessary" Gay Marriage did not become legal in Indiana by choice, it was by force.

(03-29-2015 08:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is a shame that gays simply don't respect the feelings of business owners and pushed this issue in the first place. Patronize the businesses that welcome you...stay out of the ones that don't. Problem solved.

It is a shame that blacks simply don't respect the feelings of business owners and pushed this issue in the first place. Patronize the businesses that welcome you...stay out of the ones that don't. Problem solved.

see how bad that sounds when one little word is changed?