(04-01-2015 01:43 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, does this Indiana law supercede the Federal Civil Rights Act?

You mean the Federal Civil Rights Act that doesn't cover LGBT persons? No it doesn't. Hope that helps.

(04-01-2015 02:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 01:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's not a battle, it's a last gasp from an increasingly impotent group of americans who aren't aware how much their influence has waned. If nothing else, it's simply a matter of them dying.

Yes, and it's something that the business wing of the Republican Party actually understands (which is why even freaking Wal-Mart has come out against the Arkansas law). The socially conservative agenda that's a complete general election loser is completely drowning out the fiscally conservative arguments that the Republicans can win on.

As a lifelong Republican, I'm sick of it. Pandering to socially conservative voters over the age of 50 in states that wouldn't vote Democratic even if the Republican presidential candidate was a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump is simply a bad strategy from a political perspective regardless of how you personally feel about gay marriage. The Republicans need to win the 18-49 year olds that live in swing states, and they overwhelmingly support gay marriage. If the party is willing to tank its fiscal policy that could actually gain traction with the American public in order to pander to a demographic that is losing power with every passing day, then we might as well just start moving the Clinton furniture back into the White House right now.

Unfortunately the GOP hasn't done any leg work in prepping it's religious base during the past 6 years. It doesn't seem as if Republicans are serious about winning national elections.

Well, the results of four of the last six Presidential elections, the popular vote in five of them and the changing demographics in this country seem to indicate that the GOP cannot and will not win national elections in the future.

It is increasingly becoming a rural, Southern, elderly, white man's party only.

Things like this Indiana law only hurt them more. So be it.

Actually this would have been much worse if it had blown up next year during the Presidential campaign.

(04-01-2015 02:38 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 05:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Ahhh, so we see, equal protection... Hetro AND homo.

Not exactly. Because those claiming religious freedom in their B&B's aren't turning away divorced persons. Nor are the florists refusing second weddings. Its just the Gays that are denied service.

In effect, while discrimination against heteros by those claiming religious motivation would be legal, it never ever happens in a commercial setting.

Tom you keep ignoring something here..

1) Divorce is past sin like all sin it can be covered by the Blood of Christ after repentance.
2) Gay Sex is *ongoing sin*

Not unless you divorce that second wife. Otherwise, two seconds after the Gay marriage happens. I'm reborn. Two seconds after Gay sex... I'm reborn. How is this any different from a theological perspective than a divorced and remarried person continuing to maintain that relationship and to have sex?

I'll tell you how it is different.

When a person gets married, even for a second or third time, on the day of their marriage, They are taking a spouse in the sense that God intended. One man - One woman. That' what God intended. When a preacher or Pastor agrees to marry two people, he (should, and most likely does in 99% of the cases) asks the two to repent of any past sin. The two enter as blameless and fresh. They TRY to live an upright life and do right in the eyes of God. They may fail, BUT THEIR INTENT IS CLEAR.

You ask me to honor that with a beautiful wedding cake or flowers? Hell yes I will.

When 2 men or 3 women or a dog and a 14 year old get married, THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY GOING AGAINST GOD'S WILL. On that day of "marriage", they are making a deliberate act of rebellion against God.

You ask me to honor that with a beautiful wedding cake or flowers? Hell no I won't.

You see, you're fight is not with Christians. It's not even with Jews or Muslims. All three of those faiths worship the God of Abraham. The Old Testament is the basis for all three religions, so not one of us three are a safe-haven for people who want to champion Gay as normal. No, your actual argument is with the one true LIVING GOD, and I suggest you deal with that before you die.

May God bless you, and I mean that sincerely.

Not seeing your argument. Except to note that you opine that Gay people are like those that commit bestiality or pedophilia. Noted.

(04-01-2015 02:38 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 05:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:42 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Ahhh, so we see, equal protection... Hetro AND homo.

Not exactly. Because those claiming religious freedom in their B&B's aren't turning away divorced persons. Nor are the florists refusing second weddings. Its just the Gays that are denied service.

In effect, while discrimination against heteros by those claiming religious motivation would be legal, it never ever happens in a commercial setting.

Tom you keep ignoring something here..

1) Divorce is past sin like all sin it can be covered by the Blood of Christ after repentance.
2) Gay Sex is *ongoing sin*

Not unless you divorce that second wife. Otherwise, two seconds after the Gay marriage happens. I'm reborn. Two seconds after Gay sex... I'm reborn. How is this any different from a theological perspective than a divorced and remarried person continuing to maintain that relationship and to have sex?

I'll tell you how it is different.

When a person gets married, even for a second or third time, on the day of their marriage, They are taking a spouse in the sense that God intended. One man - One woman. That' what God intended. When a preacher or Pastor agrees to marry two people, he (should, and most likely does in 99% of the cases) asks the two to repent of any past sin. The two enter as blameless and fresh. They TRY to live an upright life and do right in the eyes of God. They may fail, BUT THEIR INTENT IS CLEAR.

You ask me to honor that with a beautiful wedding cake or flowers? Hell yes I will.

When 2 men or 3 women or a dog and a 14 year old get married, THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY GOING AGAINST GOD'S WILL. On that day of "marriage", they are making a deliberate act of rebellion against God.

I think you'd find that any bakers refusing homosexual cakes aren't interested in finding out whether or not the bolded portion is true or occurred for the heterosexual couples they're making cakes for. That's where the issue that most people have about this comes from, it comes off as arbitrarily discriminatory with religion being used as a simple afterthought in an attempt to legitimize this discrimination.

You show me a bakery which only bakes for Catholic couples being married, requiring a form filled out by a Priest stating that this will be a religious ceremony following the guidelines of the church, and l will fully defend their right to discriminate based on that status. But that's not what's happening. It's disingenuous to agree to make cakes for every heterosexual couple walking through the door regardless of their religion/irreligion/ceremony/etc but deny a homosexual due to 'religious reasons'. It's the inconsistency in which these companies apply their 'religious reasons' that's the issue here, and why it's not a matter of religious freedom.

(04-01-2015 02:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 02:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 01:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's not a battle, it's a last gasp from an increasingly impotent group of americans who aren't aware how much their influence has waned. If nothing else, it's simply a matter of them dying.

Yes, and it's something that the business wing of the Republican Party actually understands (which is why even freaking Wal-Mart has come out against the Arkansas law). The socially conservative agenda that's a complete general election loser is completely drowning out the fiscally conservative arguments that the Republicans can win on.

As a lifelong Republican, I'm sick of it. Pandering to socially conservative voters over the age of 50 in states that wouldn't vote Democratic even if the Republican presidential candidate was a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump is simply a bad strategy from a political perspective regardless of how you personally feel about gay marriage. The Republicans need to win the 18-49 year olds that live in swing states, and they overwhelmingly support gay marriage. If the party is willing to tank its fiscal policy that could actually gain traction with the American public in order to pander to a demographic that is losing power with every passing day, then we might as well just start moving the Clinton furniture back into the White House right now.

Unfortunately the GOP hasn't done any leg work in prepping it's religious base during the past 6 years. It doesn't seem as if Republicans are serious about winning national elections.

Well, the results of four of the last six Presidential elections, the popular vote in five of them and the changing demographics in this country seem to indicate that the GOP cannot and will not win national elections in the future.

It is increasingly becoming a rural, Southern, elderly, white man's party only.

Things like this Indiana law only hurt them more. So be it.

Actually this would have been much worse if it had blown up next year during the Presidential campaign.

It's bad enough. Because one thing the GOP hasn't been able to do in the past 6 years is come end with an answer to social questions which don't make them look like they reading from they just walked out of a 1965 time portal. The media WILL ask them these questions and at best Republican candidates will hem and haw.

(04-01-2015 03:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 02:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 02:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 01:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, and it's something that the business wing of the Republican Party actually understands (which is why even freaking Wal-Mart has come out against the Arkansas law). The socially conservative agenda that's a complete general election loser is completely drowning out the fiscally conservative arguments that the Republicans can win on.

As a lifelong Republican, I'm sick of it. Pandering to socially conservative voters over the age of 50 in states that wouldn't vote Democratic even if the Republican presidential candidate was a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump is simply a bad strategy from a political perspective regardless of how you personally feel about gay marriage. The Republicans need to win the 18-49 year olds that live in swing states, and they overwhelmingly support gay marriage. If the party is willing to tank its fiscal policy that could actually gain traction with the American public in order to pander to a demographic that is losing power with every passing day, then we might as well just start moving the Clinton furniture back into the White House right now.

Unfortunately the GOP hasn't done any leg work in prepping it's religious base during the past 6 years. It doesn't seem as if Republicans are serious about winning national elections.

Well, the results of four of the last six Presidential elections, the popular vote in five of them and the changing demographics in this country seem to indicate that the GOP cannot and will not win national elections in the future.

It is increasingly becoming a rural, Southern, elderly, white man's party only.

Things like this Indiana law only hurt them more. So be it.

Actually this would have been much worse if it had blown up next year during the Presidential campaign.

It's bad enough. Because one thing the GOP hasn't been able to do in the past 6 years is come end with an answer to social questions which don't make them look like they reading from they just walked out of a 1965 time portal. The media WILL ask them these questions and at best Republican candidates will hem and haw.

Oh, its bad for them. But it would have been so much worse had it blown up next year.

---

The interesting dynamic in play here is that this issue appears to be less of Republican vs. Democrat than a business/country club Republican crowd versus the Tea Party/Religious Right wing argument. This is VERY bad news for the GOP and especially for GOP candidates.

In 2010, 2012, and 2014, Tea Party insurgents - in alliance with the religious right, have run ramshod over the business/country club wing of the party in primary after primary. The business/country club wing has lost just about every single time. But they didn't break with the party. It looks like they might just start to do that over these social issues.

But its not like many GOP candidates facing primaries (and especially GOP Presidential candidates) can cut their losses on these issues. The GOP Primary calendar and method of nomination are set up so that the tea party/evangelicals have an outsized importance. Many of the candidates are trapped. Absolutely trapped.

Many Republicans are scratching their heads about this and wondering why the huge outrage over this? The answer is that it was a reaction to the cumulative impact of GOP intolerance of LGBT persons. Overreach is the friend of those in the minority. Here's a hint to the GOP....if Tony Perkins or the AFA are the only ones willing to come to your bill signing ceremony....then you might need to rethink the wisdom of signing the law.

---

This reminds me a lot of the massive pro-Latino protests that erupted in 2006. It totally screwed the GOP.

---

And this wasn't the result of liberal government overreach, but rather of tea party government overreach.

---

Eventually the news cycle will move on towards new issues. Although Hillary has to be dancing over this - it completely squashed the phone record conversation.

(04-01-2015 01:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 01:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I STILL can't get anyone claiming 'you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate' to tell me that they think a gay baker should be forced to bake an 'anti-gay' cake for the Westboro Baptist Church members.

Bump


Honestly, It's fine if Tom and others are simply advocating for their team... There's nothing wrong with that and as I've said numerous times, I support much of what he advocates...

I just don't support inequality...

It simply seems that some people want to be part of a special class so that they can discriminate against others... under the guise of not wanting discrimination. Star-bellied Sneeches.

You have hit on an important point that people ignore most of the time.

The laws are NOT about equality. They never were. When the Courts created this system and these laws in the Civil Rights era they were explicitly unequal. They were intended to be temporary to correct historical wrongs.

The issue that arises when we talk homosexuals is not the same.

These laws are the wrong tool for the wrong job.

Anybody who tells you they are about equality doesn't know what they are talking about. They are either dishonest or stupid in fact.

But as we've talked about before, the ability to walk back even a smidgen of any Civil Rights Legislation is a complete non-starter.

So if an establishment is run by a Muslim, can he keep everyone but muslims out? Because everyone else is immoral according to him.

(04-01-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So if an establishment is run by a Muslim, can he keep everyone but muslims out? Because everyone else is immoral according to him.

Public Accomodation laws 101

Are you a member of a protected class?
Yes- Then you can't be discriminated against on the basis of your being part of it.
No- Then you can to an extent.

Is the establishment public or private?
Public- Equal protection applies.
Private- Are you a business or a private club?
Business- See the first question.
Club- Serve whomever and whatever you want.

What is a protected class?
1. Whomever or whatever is on the list.


That's the quick and dirty rundown which folks should be able to use to decide wether or not somebody could decline service under particular circumstances.

Phone typed*

Muslim NBA Star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Slams Indiana Religious Freedom Law As “Anti-American”, Compares It To . . . Sharia Law



CAIR must be so confused. I mean a good Muslim attacking Sharia law? Shocking....

Quote:The state took a step toward establishing an American version of Sharia law

In the 1987 movie Moonstruck, Nicolas Cage plays a contentious man who, when confronted with his unreasonable and unjust behavior, shouts in defense, “I ain’t no freakin’ monument to justice!” That line echoes in my head when I think about Indiana’s hypocritical and anti-American Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). At its core, rather than being a monument to justice, RFRA is a step toward establishing an American version of Shari’a law.

I know that sounds hyperbolic, in the tradition of, “If Obama is re-elected, the terrorists have won” or “If the pipeline isn’t approved, you’re Nazis because Hitler once nixed a pipeline.” However, in this case, the comparison is not so crazy. Shari’a law, when imposed on a population by force, makes a single religion’s teachings (often a single sect of that religion’s teachings) the law of the land. The mission is to force everyone to follow the teachings lest they be punished. Although RFRA supporters aren’t physically assaulting people, they certainly are attempting to punish those who don’t follow their own very specific interpretation of God’s teachings.

http://time.com/3765063/kareem-abdul-jab...ation-act/

Law Professor: RFRA Widely Misunderstood…

Quote:Two law professor said that the state’s new religious freedom bill is being wrongly interpreted to mean that it allows discrimination against gay and lesbian Hoosiers.

The law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless the government can demonstrate that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest.[…]

However, Daniel O. Conkle, the Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Indiana University, said business owners do not need such protection, because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation already is legal in most of Indiana.

State and federal law prohibit discrimination only in five areas: gender, race, religion, national origin and disability. That means, for example, that a baker in Indiana cannot refuse to sell cakes to a customer who is African American or French based on the customer’s race or nationality. (He could still refuse to sell to them for other reasons, such as failure to wear a shirt or shoes.) That same baker in Indiana, however, would operate within the law if he decided not to sell cakes to a gay customer because of the customer’s sexual orientation.[…]

Conkle and Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, said that even in Indiana areas that have discrimination protections for gay and lesbian Hoosiers, such as Bloomington and Indianapolis, the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is unlikely to have any negative impact.

If, for example, a baker in Bloomington felt that his exercise of religion were unduly burdened if he had to cater a gay wedding, he could, under the state’s RFRA, try to get an exemption to the city’s law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Conkle said that such a case is extremely unlikely to happen, because if a Bloomington business owner were to discriminate against gay or lesbian community members, he would likely suffer significant negative press, boycotts and loss of business.

http://www.greensburgdailynews.com/news/...7a6e3.html

(04-01-2015 11:33 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Law Professor: RFRA Widely Misunderstood…

Quote:Two law professor said that the state’s new religious freedom bill is being wrongly interpreted to mean that it allows discrimination against gay and lesbian Hoosiers.

The law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless the government can demonstrate that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest.[…]

However, Daniel O. Conkle, the Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Indiana University, said business owners do not need such protection, because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation already is legal in most of Indiana.

State and federal law prohibit discrimination only in five areas: gender, race, religion, national origin and disability. That means, for example, that a baker in Indiana cannot refuse to sell cakes to a customer who is African American or French based on the customer’s race or nationality. (He could still refuse to sell to them for other reasons, such as failure to wear a shirt or shoes.) That same baker in Indiana, however, would operate within the law if he decided not to sell cakes to a gay customer because of the customer’s sexual orientation.[…]

Conkle and Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, said that even in Indiana areas that have discrimination protections for gay and lesbian Hoosiers, such as Bloomington and Indianapolis, the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is unlikely to have any negative impact.

If, for example, a baker in Bloomington felt that his exercise of religion were unduly burdened if he had to cater a gay wedding, he could, under the state’s RFRA, try to get an exemption to the city’s law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Conkle said that such a case is extremely unlikely to happen, because if a Bloomington business owner were to discriminate against gay or lesbian community members, he would likely suffer significant negative press, boycotts and loss of business.

http://www.greensburgdailynews.com/news/...7a6e3.html

Both of those professors are vested in the original law. They're desparately trying to defend their original support.

The law will be amended to explicitly remove any use of this bill to deny services, housing, or employment to anyone based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.

The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

It is pretty obvious that ones belief system is irrelevant and in fact poses a danger to these people. I still want to know why would you want to force anyone to give you services under the threat of violence. One would think that would involve way too much drama and risk of receiving poor services.

(04-02-2015 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

It is pretty obvious that ones belief system is irrelevant and in fact poses a danger to these people. I still want to know why would you want to force anyone to give you services under the threat of violence. One would think that would involve way too much drama and risk of receiving poor services.

This is an aspect that seems very strange to me. I wouldn't want to patronize any business that openly professed opposition to, say, Rice graduates.

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

Their ultimate goal is to wipe out religion entirely. They want to return to the second century, when Christians had to meet in secret.

What I want to know without any one openly telling any store owner that They are Gay or a Gay couple before hand, That They can prove They were discriminated against for that very reason. I know a couple of people that I originally thought could have been gay but in reality are very straight. So where would you draw a line. If those folks were discriminated against for the assumption of being Gay and proven otherwise being straight, would the same discrimination theory apply or be thrown out ?

(04-02-2015 06:47 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

Their ultimate goal is to wipe out religion entirely. They want to return to the second century, when Christians had to meet in secret.

Maybe. I think their immediate goal is to legitimize their reprobate lifestyle.

From what I've read, all this "outrage" is similar to something that happend in 1692.

So much blatant misrepresenting and outright lying going on here. You gays and leftists should just close your puke holes.