So many people wanting to be the next George Wallace.

(04-01-2015 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So many people wanting to be the next George Wallace.

Here are the states with existing religious freedom laws. Why the outcry now? Why aren't people upset at Ct. or Va.?

(04-01-2015 10:24 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So many people wanting to be the next George Wallace.

Here are the states with existing religious freedom laws. Why the outcry now? Why aren't people upset at Ct. or Va.?

Because, as repeated many times before, those states are clear that religious freedom cannot be used as a basis to discriminate and/or they have anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation that aren't in place in Indiana and Arkansas.

The "other states have similar laws" argument doesn't hold water (even though I know many social conservatives seem to want to keep repeating it).

(04-01-2015 10:24 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So many people wanting to be the next George Wallace.

Here are the states with existing religious freedom laws. Why the outcry now? Why aren't people upset at Ct. or Va.?

Because Indiana's law caught public attention, and it goes further than the other laws in place. This is how social changes occur, the civil rights movement kicked off heavily in the South, not because it was the only place racism occurred but because it was the place where the racist laws were worse and it caught the public attention. It's not because those other laws are OK that they're focusing on Indiana, it's because the public isn't great at taking nuanced stances on large problems.

Do you live in the same world, because this should be obvious to anyone over the age of, say, 10?

(04-01-2015 10:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 10:24 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So many people wanting to be the next George Wallace.

Here are the states with existing religious freedom laws. Why the outcry now? Why aren't people upset at Ct. or Va.?

Because Indiana's law caught public attention, and it goes further than the other laws in place. This is how social changes occur, the civil rights movement kicked off heavily in the South, not because it was the only place racism occurred but because it was the place where the racist laws were worse and it caught the public attention. It's not because those other laws are OK that they're focusing on Indiana, it's because the public isn't great at taking nuanced stances on large problems.

Do you live in the same world, because this should be obvious to anyone over the age of, say, 10?

Exactly. Indiana was the straw that broke the camels back.

The GOP tea party movement has been playing hostile to the country club/business community wing for too long

The GOP has been playing footsie with the AFA and the FRC for too long

The GOP mistook a gerrymandered majority for an actual majority

Update:

Arkansas appears to be caving....
Ok. Here's the scenario

83 Anti-Gay bills filed.,

Passed with no amendment pending... 1 (Mississippi)
Passed with amendment pending... 1 (Indiana)

Arkansas bears watching. But if we can stop it there and in Georgia and NC, its good news.

Hopefully, the movement over the Arkansas bill will open the scenario up that we can get rid of Arkansas' law that removed municipal protections against LGBT Arkansans where enacted by the various municipalities in that state.

(04-01-2015 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Update:

Arkansas appears to be caving....
Ok. Here's the scenario

83 Anti-Gay bills filed.,

Passed with no amendment pending... 1 (Mississippi)
Passed with amendment pending... 1 (Indiana)

Arkansas bears watching. But if we can stop it there and in Georgia and NC, its good news.

Hopefully, the movement over the Arkansas bill will open the scenario up that we can get rid of Arkansas' law that removed municipal protections against LGBT Arkansans where enacted by the various municipalities in that state.

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.

(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.

(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.

English is hard. What if scenarios... That's all the gay mafia has. That's why the laws are written the way they are, so the courts get to decide what is " a sincere religious" belief or conviction and what isn't.

This is what the Arkansas governor said today about the bill passed by the Arkansas legislature:

"Arkansas Gov. Hutchinson asks for changes to religious freedom bill

04/01/15 10:47 AM—UPDATED 04/01/15 01:17 PM



By Emma Margolin


Following intense criticism from businesses, politicians and even his own son, Arkansas Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson reversed course Wednesday and said that he would not approve the religious freedom measure currently awaiting his signature unless lawmakers changed it to directly mirror a federal version. The governor had previously said he would sign the legislation.

“The bill that is on my desk at the present time does not precisely mirror the federal law in a couple of ways,” Hutchinson told reporters gathered at the State Capitol in Little Rock. One particular difference, he said, is that the current version allows “the First Amendment to be asserted in the private litigation between parties.”

Legal experts say the private parties provision is particularly problematic in that it allows individuals (defined very broadly in this case) to use their religious beliefs as a defense in discrimination lawsuits. Opponents say it could embolden businesses to deny services to same-sex couples, for example, or to any other person with whom the business owners claim to have a religious objection.

The same provision exists in Indiana’s controversial religious freedom law, potentially upping the pressure on that state’s Republican Gov. Mike Pence to call for similar changes. But Kara Brook, Pence’s press secretary, said the governor would not be issuing a statement in reaction to Hutchinson’s decision, NBC’s Jennifer Roller reported.

Hutchinson said he had asked leaders in the general assembly to either recall the bill so that it could be amended, or pass additional changes so that the measure more closely resembles the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Hutchinson cited the criticism he has received, saying that even his son signed a petition asking him to veto the bill.

“My son, Seth, signed the petition asking me, dad, the governor, to veto this bill,” Hutchinson said. “And it shows that there’s a generational difference of opinion on these issues.”

The governor also went further and said that he was considering an executive order to ensure protection against discrimination in the workplace for state government employees.



Arkansas’ Republican-controlled legislature gave final approval Tuesday to an Indiana-style Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which critics warn could sanction discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Arkansas’ largest employer, Wal-Mart, has urged Hutchinson to veto the measure. “Every day, in our stores, we see firsthand the benefits of diversity and inclusion have on our associates, customers and communities we serve,” CEO Doug McMillon said in a statement posted on Twitter. “It all starts with our core basic belief of respect for the individual. Today’s passage of HB1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold. For these reasons, we are asking Governor Hutchinson to veto this legislation.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is expected to formally announce her campaign for president this month, also urged Hutchinson to veto the bill.



Other business leaders, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, who is openly gay, have publicly condemned the legislation.

Earlier this year, Arkansas passed another controversial measure barring cities and counties from enacting nondiscrimination protections that exceed the state’s. Arkansas does not bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, so the measure effectively nullified LGBT protections that existed at the local level. That measure became law without Hutchinson’s signature.

In an effort to redress the negative consequences of that law, LGBT advocates put forth a ballot proposal to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the state’s existing civil rights act. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, a Republican, approved the wording of that measure Tuesday, clearing the way for supporters to gather signatures. If they can get 68,000 registered voters to sign on, the proposal will be added to next year’s ballot.

“That debate will continue and ultimately be determined by people of this state either through their legislative body, or through the vote of the people,” Hutchinson said of the effort to add LGBT protections to the state’s civil rights law. “This conversation does not end.”


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/arkansas-asa-...nbc_native

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/defaul...a_rfra.pdf

(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.

(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

No one is addressing this because it's not really relevant, and it's an intentionally pointed question. A cake maker has every right to not make a cake based on what is on that cake itself, that won't change. What will change is their ability to deny providing the same cake to a homosexual couple that they would for a heterosexual couple, simply because of their sexuality. You can still turn people away for any myriad of reasons.

So, does this Indiana law supercede the Federal Civil Rights Act?

(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.

(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.

(04-01-2015 01:33 PM)UCF08 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

No one is addressing this because it's not really relevant, and it's an intentionally pointed question. A cake maker has every right to not make a cake based on what is on that cake itself, that won't change. What will change is their ability to deny providing the same cake to a homosexual couple that they would for a heterosexual couple, simply because of their sexuality. You can still turn people away for any myriad of reasons.

Thank you for responding.

It absolutely IS relevant and your answer proves it. Even the Indiana law talks about a 'compelling state interest' which is the burden of fairness. A homosexual couple can't be denied identical services merely based on their sexuality because 'equal protection' furthers a compelling state interest. It doesn't even have to be a 'protected group' as some claim... it merely has to be a compelling state interest.

In other words, what REALLY isn't relevant is the 'stories' about what bakers and florists can now do to gay people... because the state can STILL over-ride their right to religion when it conflicts with a compelling state interest.

Which is why I specifically asked if their goal was fairness or not.

I agree with you that they should be allowed to deny performance of 'custom' creations on religious grounds, which means that they may have to get someone else to put the two grooms on the cake (if that is all this is really about)... but not to deny baking and decorating the identical cake or flower arrangement as in their book... or whatever they agreed to do in the consultation.

Yes, it's intentionally pointed because it responds to an intentionally misleading narrative about the issue.

(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.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/201...s-not-yet/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/12116...epublicans

One of these is from about a year ago. The other is from about a month ago. It sounds like the Republican party has looked into this. I'm hesitant to say that Millenials SUPPORT gay marriage. I think a more accurate way of saying it might be that they have no opinion or don't care one way or the other.

That aside, I agree with you to an extent and I think Republican leaders see this to an extent. To think they're just wringing their hands over the demographic shifts isn't quite right. One of the best things that they can do IMO is try to win over Hispanics.

(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:  

(03-31-2015 04:29 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  Thanks, I had assumed that was the case.

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.