User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:11:42 PM EDT
[#1]
They got the government they wanted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:16:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But isn't ARFCOM always complaining bitterly about Muslim cashiers who won't ring up a customer with alcohol or pork products, or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse service to people with seeing-eye dogs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. But isn't ARFCOM always complaining bitterly about Muslim cashiers who won't ring up a customer with alcohol or pork products, or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse service to people with seeing-eye dogs? You know what the solution is for that...???? Kind of like what happens to a beat cop who will not write tickets or a city building inspector who will not inspect buildings...only with them is takes longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:18:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess you've never witnessed a gay pride parade......debauchery in full view......it's for the children... Here is a thought. Homosexuality might not upset you so much if you didn't spend so much time thinking and talking about all the intimate, juicy, fluid-splashing details. The most frequent, and detailed descriptions of homosexuality that I have seen on the Internet always seem to come from people who are against it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why do conservatives stand up for things they're supposed to? Idk, that question falls off the stupid tree a lot. Maybe they should be Democrats. 
I think it's great that they put religious freedom, the 1st Amendment, over people's butt sex paraphilia. The Left wants Christians to either go out of business by not supporting perverted faux "marriages", or make them give up their beliefs and support the idolatry of these fake unions. Because the Left is so super duper tolerant they can't tolerate Christians. I'm pretty sure it's the Lefts' love of confusing biology that fell off the "stupid tree". Man and woman being creatures made for each other is a painfully obvious fact, despite post-modern attempts to deny truth. It's a shame "conservatives" have jumped onto the 'stupid' that maybe a penis is made for a butt and maybe two vaginas are made for each other, a person's "feelings" are what really count. Unless you feel that's wrong based on, oh, biology, or longstanding religious beliefs, then your feelings are wrong and stupid. Yeah, ok.  I guess you've never witnessed a gay pride parade......debauchery in full view......it's for the children... Here is a thought. Homosexuality might not upset you so much if you didn't spend so much time thinking and talking about all the intimate, juicy, fluid-splashing details. The most frequent, and detailed descriptions of homosexuality that I have seen on the Internet always seem to come from people who are against it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:18:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? Because absent such a law the pink mafia will try and use the force of local or state government to destroy the businesses of religious people??? Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:23:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm fine with it. If gays want to get married in a church and have the church recognize them then why don't they start their own damn churches and religion? Because they want to get married in your church and force their sacrilege and immorality into your church and the face of your fellow congregants. Even if they have to use government force and threats to make it happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:28:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why not just come right out and say whatever you're trying to say, 14er, instead of playing little passive-aggressive games, ok?  13ers bitching about 14ers As far as the thread topic goes... Well, this topic is full fucking retard from all angles. Yes, people should be able to discriminate. Yes, there should be certain limits placed on that(and at this point there are either no laws doing this, or the ones that exist go way too fucking far). Most of the publicized issues have been absolutely retarded, and likely manufactured by gay activists(many of whom I suspect are not gay themselves but find it an easy cause to use to be troublesome to others). If a cake shop doesn't want to make a cake for someone, well too fucking bad try one of the other hundred bakeries in the metro area. When it gets to the point, as it has now, where you are forced to do business that you don't want to or face being shut down, vilified in the media, and fined thousands of dollars by the state, then it is time to do something about the erosion of freedoms. This is no different than ObamaCare taxing you for not having the right health care plan(and fucking up the industry in the process and calling it an improvement). This shit has to stop. I live in Portland, and according to the recent Gallup poll gays outnumber blacks here by a decent margin. Honestly I don't give a fuck what you do or who you do it with, just don't go shoving it in my face everywhere I go unless you want me to shove back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:31:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do conservatives stand up for things they're supposed to? Idk, that question falls off the stupid tree a lot. Maybe they should be Democrats.
I think it's great that they put religious freedom, the 1st Amendment, over people's butt sex paraphilia. The Left wants Christians to either go out of business by not supporting perverted faux "marriages", or make them give up their beliefs and support the idolatry of these fake unions. Because the Left is so super duper tolerant they can't tolerate Christians. I'm pretty sure it's the Lefts' love of confusing biology that fell off the "stupid tree". Man and woman being creatures made for each other is a painfully obvious fact, despite post-modern attempts to deny truth. It's a shame "conservatives" have jumped onto the 'stupid' that maybe a penis is made for a butt and maybe two vaginas are made for each other, a person's "feelings" are what really count. Unless you feel that's wrong based on, oh, biology, or longstanding religious beliefs, then your feelings are wrong and stupid. Yeah, ok. I guess you've never witnessed a gay pride parade......debauchery in full view......it's for the children... Here is a thought. Homosexuality might not upset you so much if you didn't spend so much time thinking and talking about all the intimate, juicy, fluid-splashing details. The most frequent, and detailed descriptions of homosexuality that I have seen on the Internet always seem to come from people who are against it. I have seen the gay pride parade in SF, supposed to be the best of them all. I thought it was pretty funny but it didn't interest me so I didn't hang around to obsess over it. Did you hang around to watch every detail of the ones you have seen? Did you keep your kids there with you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:52:32 PM EDT
[#8]
14'er I guess I am, does it count that I lurked here since about '07? Aside from that nonsense, people need to take the stupid chips off of their shoulders and grow up. You can call me whatever you like, I'm a grown-a$$ man and I can and will ignore you. I really don't care what you do or who you screw behind your closed doors. I do get sick and tired of the media and the special interest groups trying to shove their crap down my throat. I am a veteran, I am a Christian, I am a conservative, and an American. I have a right to believe what I want, plain and simple. I am also a business owner, and believe that I should be able to choose whether or not to do business with you, or employ you, at my will. You, on the other hand, have the right to choose whether to use my services. My employees also have the right to quit their job at will, and I have the right to continue their employment or not. Let's try to play nice, please, people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:57:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Yep, the one that mirrors the federal law that was passed under Clinton
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:01:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
14'er I guess I am, does it count that I lurked here since about '07? Aside from that nonsense, people need to take the stupid chips off of their shoulders and grow up. You can call me whatever you like, I'm a grown-a$$ man and I can and will ignore you. I really don't care what you do or who you screw behind your closed doors. I do get sick and tired of the media and the special interest groups trying to shove their crap down my throat. I am a veteran, I am a Christian, I am a conservative, and an American. I have a right to believe what I want, plain and simple. I am also a business owner, and believe that I should be able to choose whether or not to do business with you, or employ you, at my will. You, on the other hand, have the right to choose whether to use my services. My employees also have the right to quit their job at will, and I have the right to continue their employment or not. Let's try to play nice, please, people. Why does that phrase always appear on this topic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:04:51 PM EDT
[#11]
Because we all believe we are entitled to our opinions, whether right or not?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:11:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the bigger point GrandfatherCoyote is making is not whether discrimination was a problem, but whether the use of government force is an appropriate way to deal with the problem. I don't believe that one can end racism by passing a law that prohibits discrimination. The best that such a law can accomplish is to drive outward manifestations of racism underground where they are hidden from public view. When this happens, public shaming and market forces cannot be brought to bear. As GrandfatherCoyote pointed out, if he doesn't like a racist business practice he can take his business elsewhere. However, if he cannot discern what business are and are not run by people he does not like (because they are forced by the law to hide their positions) he cannot choose not to patronize those businesses. As racism becomes hidden, the law extends its reach further to try and derive what is in our hearts and minds by resorting to other methods to try and find racism, such as by looking at disparate impacts and aggregate data. It almost becomes a witch hunt of sorts for racists and racism may be found where it, in fact, doesn't exist. This can cause resentment for the law and may even breed the very thing the law might be said to try and eliminate. Consider that before 1964 it was still perfectly legal for private businesses to discriminate. Overt discrimination was obvious, and market forces and social pressure could be brought to bear upon discriminators. Just look at what happened with Woolworth's lunch counter. Racial discrimination in private services was already on the way out because public sentiment was shifting. Did the law really accelerate that trend, or did it send us on a different trajectory? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... So racial discrimination in the South never was a "real" problem. Good to know it worked for you. I think the bigger point GrandfatherCoyote is making is not whether discrimination was a problem, but whether the use of government force is an appropriate way to deal with the problem. I don't believe that one can end racism by passing a law that prohibits discrimination. The best that such a law can accomplish is to drive outward manifestations of racism underground where they are hidden from public view. When this happens, public shaming and market forces cannot be brought to bear. As GrandfatherCoyote pointed out, if he doesn't like a racist business practice he can take his business elsewhere. However, if he cannot discern what business are and are not run by people he does not like (because they are forced by the law to hide their positions) he cannot choose not to patronize those businesses. As racism becomes hidden, the law extends its reach further to try and derive what is in our hearts and minds by resorting to other methods to try and find racism, such as by looking at disparate impacts and aggregate data. It almost becomes a witch hunt of sorts for racists and racism may be found where it, in fact, doesn't exist. This can cause resentment for the law and may even breed the very thing the law might be said to try and eliminate. Consider that before 1964 it was still perfectly legal for private businesses to discriminate. Overt discrimination was obvious, and market forces and social pressure could be brought to bear upon discriminators. Just look at what happened with Woolworth's lunch counter. Racial discrimination in private services was already on the way out because public sentiment was shifting. Did the law really accelerate that trend, or did it send us on a different trajectory? Pretty much nailed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:12:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because we all believe we are entitled to our opinions, whether right or not? There are lots of ways to express that idea. Why does the discussion of gays always come down to "shoving things down my throat"? I'm not Freud or anything, but sheesh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:12:57 PM EDT
[#14]
I didn't really consider it within that context.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:13:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much nailed it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... So racial discrimination in the South never was a "real" problem. Good to know it worked for you. I think the bigger point GrandfatherCoyote is making is not whether discrimination was a problem, but whether the use of government force is an appropriate way to deal with the problem. I don't believe that one can end racism by passing a law that prohibits discrimination. The best that such a law can accomplish is to drive outward manifestations of racism underground where they are hidden from public view. When this happens, public shaming and market forces cannot be brought to bear. As GrandfatherCoyote pointed out, if he doesn't like a racist business practice he can take his business elsewhere. However, if he cannot discern what business are and are not run by people he does not like (because they are forced by the law to hide their positions) he cannot choose not to patronize those businesses. As racism becomes hidden, the law extends its reach further to try and derive what is in our hearts and minds by resorting to other methods to try and find racism, such as by looking at disparate impacts and aggregate data. It almost becomes a witch hunt of sorts for racists and racism may be found where it, in fact, doesn't exist. This can cause resentment for the law and may even breed the very thing the law might be said to try and eliminate. Consider that before 1964 it was still perfectly legal for private businesses to discriminate. Overt discrimination was obvious, and market forces and social pressure could be brought to bear upon discriminators. Just look at what happened with Woolworth's lunch counter. Racial discrimination in private services was already on the way out because public sentiment was shifting. Did the law really accelerate that trend, or did it send us on a different trajectory? Pretty much nailed it. Having been in the South in that era, and talking to a number of people of the pale persuasion, I would say it is pretty certain that the law was a key part of that change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:17:24 PM EDT
[#16]
The law is pointless. Pence even admitted on Garrison that there was no pressing reason to pass it.
The GOP appealed to their base. The libs used it to play to theirs. At the end of the day, nothing is going to change. And if someone DOES try to claim protection under the statute, it will out them as a discriminating entity. My gay friends were pretty upset with this law but after reading more about it strikes me as being mostly pointless. However IANAL |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:18:01 PM EDT
[#17]
If I am to properly utilize the "King's English", then I do not appreciate being told what I must or must not find acceptable. That seems to override my sense of right and wrong. I don't expect that everyone on this earth shares my opinions, but to the contrary. I share my opinions, and the reasoning thereof, so that those that disagree might understand my viewpoint. I'm not argumentative, just expressing my beliefs. Those that don't agree, have all the right to do so, with no disrespect from me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:18:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because they want to get married in your church and force their sacrilege and immorality into your church and the face of your fellow congregants. Even if they have to use government force and threats to make it happen. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm fine with it. If gays want to get married in a church and have the church recognize them then why don't they start their own damn churches and religion? Because they want to get married in your church and force their sacrilege and immorality into your church and the face of your fellow congregants. Even if they have to use government force and threats to make it happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:22:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law is pointless. Pence even admitted on Garrison that there was no pressing reason to pass it. The GOP appealed to their base. The libs used it to play to theirs. At the end of the day, nothing is going to change. And if someone DOES try to claim protection under the statute, it will out them as a discriminating entity. My gay friends were pretty upset with this law but after reading more about it strikes me as being mostly pointless. However IANAL So you want to wait until the people start suing businesses or try and get some regulators involved? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:25:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do conservatives stand up for things they're supposed to? Idk, that question falls off the stupid tree a lot. Maybe they should be Democrats.
I think it's great that they put religious freedom, the 1st Amendment, over people's butt sex paraphilia. The Left wants Christians to either go out of business by not supporting perverted faux "marriages", or make them give up their beliefs and support the idolatry of these fake unions. Because the Left is so super duper tolerant they can't tolerate Christians. I'm pretty sure it's the Lefts' love of confusing biology that fell off the "stupid tree". Man and woman being creatures made for each other is a painfully obvious fact, despite post-modern attempts to deny truth. It's a shame "conservatives" have jumped onto the 'stupid' that maybe a penis is made for a butt and maybe two vaginas are made for each other, a person's "feelings" are what really count. Unless you feel that's wrong based on, oh, biology, or longstanding religious beliefs, then your feelings are wrong and stupid. Yeah, ok. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:25:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. That's why I can't really even give a shit about the whole "adding gays to the list of protected classes". Government should not be telling businesses who they have to serve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:28:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you want to wait until the people start suing businesses or try and get some regulators involved? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The law is pointless. Pence even admitted on Garrison that there was no pressing reason to pass it. The GOP appealed to their base. The libs used it to play to theirs. At the end of the day, nothing is going to change. And if someone DOES try to claim protection under the statute, it will out them as a discriminating entity. My gay friends were pretty upset with this law but after reading more about it strikes me as being mostly pointless. However IANAL So you want to wait until the people start suing businesses or try and get some regulators involved? I'd rather not get anyone involved. If a business doesn't want to serve _____, so be it. But that isn't reality. Freedom of association doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:38:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd rather not get anyone involved. If a business doesn't want to serve _____, so be it. But that isn't reality. Freedom of association doesn't exist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is pointless. Pence even admitted on Garrison that there was no pressing reason to pass it. The GOP appealed to their base. The libs used it to play to theirs. At the end of the day, nothing is going to change. And if someone DOES try to claim protection under the statute, it will out them as a discriminating entity. My gay friends were pretty upset with this law but after reading more about it strikes me as being mostly pointless. However IANAL So you want to wait until the people start suing businesses or try and get some regulators involved? I'd rather not get anyone involved. If a business doesn't want to serve _____, so be it. But that isn't reality. Freedom of association doesn't exist. So, what you are saying is that people should just do nothing and allow an intolerant minority destroy their business...because some people are unhappy or pissed off. Gotcha. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:51:29 PM EDT
[#24]
19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting
Forty percent of U.S. states have something similar to Indiana, as does the federal government. A federal RFRA signed by President Clinton in 1993 shares language with Indiana and other states' bills, prohibiting the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest" and is doing so in the least restrictive means. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 10:10:22 PM EDT
[#25]
This wouldn't have been an issue if they wouldn't have wanted the courts for force a baker to make a cake for their gay wedding, then send the baker to fucking sensitivity training to get his mind right. They pushed to far and get what they deserve. Ya, I know it may not be the baker in Indiana, but the list goes on an on. Hey here's an idea, if the dress maker does want to make a dress for Steve then Steve should find someone else who will.
They're the ones that keep screaming they want tolerance, what about tolerance for the ones that find their acts disgusting and morally repugnant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 11:55:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Between the global warming thread and this one, GHK98 is really laying it on thick.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:14:25 AM EDT
[#27]
Yeah....Private businesses should be able to refuse service to any1 unless they are providing an essential product like utilities or meds etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 3:34:49 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. This! So much of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 4:59:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. Preach it, brother. I don't want government - federal, state, or local - telling me I have to build a cabinet for a couple of atheist fags. Or a homophobic, God-talks-to-me, religious nut case either. So I'm a little confused here. How should I feel about this law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 5:16:37 AM EDT
[#30]
First time I've piped in on this type of topic. Maybe someone can explain / guide me on this.
Why is it I should "let" these groups / govt tell me what religious ways I should have to follow? I personally do not believe in homosexuality. I will teach my kids it's wrong as well. On that same point, I am tolerant of it and if someone want to be gay then I really don't care. Now if I had a business / product that I sold I would obviously sell to whoever. But as an example of the wedding cake business, if someone came in and said they wanted and wedding cake for a gay marriage and I said (politely and professionally) sorry but I can't sell u it because I don't believe in it, then why should the person who wants to buy the product go through that much trouble about it? Why couldn't they "tolerate" my beliefs and take their $ elsewhere? Or, order a cake, don't ask for 2 guys or 2 girls on top of the cake and just leave it at that? Then there is the whole, how can the govt tell me what I'm allowed to believe in? Why can I not flip it and tell homosexuals that since I believe in heterosexuality they have too, and not just tolerate it. The way I see it as an example for myself (and maybe I'm not being "extreme" enough) is, obviously I like guns. When sandy hook or mass shootings happen, there are your gaurnteed businesses that with Jack prices up 3x,4x,5x+ their normal value. I now do not do business with those companies. If they want to make a $ off of something like that then they can all they want and I don't care because I will go somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 7:03:43 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
13ers bitching about 14ers
As far as the thread topic goes... Well, this topic is full fucking retard from all angles. Yes, people should be able to discriminate. Yes, there should be certain limits placed on that(and at this point there are either no laws doing this, or the ones that exist go way too fucking far). Most of the publicized issues have been absolutely retarded, and likely manufactured by gay activists(many of whom I suspect are not gay themselves but find it an easy cause to use to be troublesome to others). If a cake shop doesn't want to make a cake for someone, well too fucking bad try one of the other hundred bakeries in the metro area. When it gets to the point, as it has now, where you are forced to do business that you don't want to or face being shut down, vilified in the media, and fined thousands of dollars by the state, then it is time to do something about the erosion of freedoms. This is no different than ObamaCare taxing you for not having the right health care plan(and fucking up the industry in the process and calling it an improvement). This shit has to stop. I live in Portland, and according to the recent Gallup poll gays outnumber blacks here by a decent margin. Honestly I don't give a fuck what you do or who you do it with, just don't go shoving it in my face everywhere I go unless you want me to shove back. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not just come right out and say whatever you're trying to say, 14er, instead of playing little passive-aggressive games, ok?
13ers bitching about 14ers
As far as the thread topic goes... Well, this topic is full fucking retard from all angles. Yes, people should be able to discriminate. Yes, there should be certain limits placed on that(and at this point there are either no laws doing this, or the ones that exist go way too fucking far). Most of the publicized issues have been absolutely retarded, and likely manufactured by gay activists(many of whom I suspect are not gay themselves but find it an easy cause to use to be troublesome to others). If a cake shop doesn't want to make a cake for someone, well too fucking bad try one of the other hundred bakeries in the metro area. When it gets to the point, as it has now, where you are forced to do business that you don't want to or face being shut down, vilified in the media, and fined thousands of dollars by the state, then it is time to do something about the erosion of freedoms. This is no different than ObamaCare taxing you for not having the right health care plan(and fucking up the industry in the process and calling it an improvement). This shit has to stop. I live in Portland, and according to the recent Gallup poll gays outnumber blacks here by a decent margin. Honestly I don't give a fuck what you do or who you do it with, just don't go shoving it in my face everywhere I go unless you want me to shove back. That's because Portland is one of the whitest metro areas in the country. Half of the population moved from elsewhere, most of them being white 20 somethings. To the highlighted blue portion, can you point me to a place on the west side that has good key lime pie? You suggest this is an easy task, yet after living here for eight years, my best bet has been frozen unless I want to drive across the river. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 7:41:41 AM EDT
[#32]
The author says it's petty, wasteful and pointless to pass a law that will affect so few people, i.e. the people who would refuse to serve gay couples. Yet the gay couples themselves are not really being denied anything; they could get the same services (which are not exactly earth-shatteringly important, by the way; nobody's dying from a lack of wedding cakes) from any number of other businesses. Aren't the lawsuits that resulted from denial of service also petty, wasteful and pointless?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 7:44:56 AM EDT
[#33]
because unelected judges forcing people to associate and accept others is the foundation of liberty and freedom.
Join the Revolution |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 8:33:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
The Indiana law that 'fell off the stupid tree' (from cnbc) "Let's be 100-percent clear: Indiana's brand new Religious Freedom Law is a measure that fell off the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. And I say that as not only a conservative, but a religious conservative... "more at link http://www.cnbc.com/id/102541800 More links: Gov Mike Pence-R press conference. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/ ESPN article http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12574928/big-ten-officials-discuss-new-indiana-religious-objections-law What say you? I say we have already discussed this. the general consensus from that thread was you have the freedom to associate with whomever you want for any reason, and yo should not be punished for it you should be free. Business owners have the right to refuse service. In short. The law is a good one, Sorry Gay guys but you don't have the right to force people to work with you. I hope laws like this sweep the nation and shut down the Gay Mafia. who use extortion to get their way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 8:43:50 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Preach it, brother. I don't want government - federal, state, or local - telling me I have to build a cabinet for a couple of atheist fags. Or a homophobic, God-talks-to-me, religious nut case either. So I'm a little confused here. How should I feel about this law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. Preach it, brother. I don't want government - federal, state, or local - telling me I have to build a cabinet for a couple of atheist fags. Or a homophobic, God-talks-to-me, religious nut case either. So I'm a little confused here. How should I feel about this law? The n we agree. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 8:49:19 AM EDT
[#36]
I love how the ARFCOM liberaltarians love it when the government forces you to associate with people you don't want to.
So freedom, much tolerance... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 9:04:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love how the ARFCOM liberaltarians love it when the government forces you to associate with people you don't want to. So freedom, much tolerance... WTF are you talking about?
I think someone is confused. As a libertarian, I believe in total freedom of association. People/ businesses should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever they wish for any reason they choose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 9:21:26 AM EDT
[#38]
a business should be able to refuse service for any reason.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 11:13:33 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I say we have already discussed this. the general consensus from that thread was you have the freedom to associate with whomever you want for any reason, and yo should not be punished for it you should be free. Business owners have the right to refuse service. In short. The law is a good one, Sorry Gay guys but you don't have the right to force people to work with you. I hope laws like this sweep the nation and shut down the Gay Mafia. who use extortion to get their way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Indiana law that 'fell off the stupid tree' (from cnbc) "Let's be 100-percent clear: Indiana's brand new Religious Freedom Law is a measure that fell off the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. And I say that as not only a conservative, but a religious conservative... "more at link http://www.cnbc.com/id/102541800 More links: Gov Mike Pence-R press conference. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/ ESPN article http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12574928/big-ten-officials-discuss-new-indiana-religious-objections-law What say you? I say we have already discussed this. the general consensus from that thread was you have the freedom to associate with whomever you want for any reason, and yo should not be punished for it you should be free. Business owners have the right to refuse service. In short. The law is a good one, Sorry Gay guys but you don't have the right to force people to work with you. I hope laws like this sweep the nation and shut down the Gay Mafia. who use extortion to get their way. I'm really a live and let live kinda guy. I don't do a lot of public displays of affection with my wife, at least not in retail stores or public restaurants. It's not like I have to fight to restrain myself. I don't understand how some people feel an intimate matter like sex is something that needs to be aired out in public. Like I said, I don't care if people do it, that's their prerogative. I just don't, and don't feel my life is missing anything. Which brings up the question, how can "gay" people be discriminated against? Unless, they're engaged in blatant public displays of affection, whose going to know? Two guys in a store or restaurant isn't that unusual, and with females it's common. Unless they're engaged in PDA, nobody is going to look twice at them. With all that said, I'm opposed to creating yet more laws. I think it's stupid to discriminate against paying customers, but I support voluntaryism. Good or bad, people have a right to choose who they interact with. That goes for both their public and private lives. If they don't like the people they're around in a public situation, they can remove themselves from that public situation. If they don't won't someone on their private property, they should be allowed to prohibit that person from their private property. To me that's just common sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:22:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Ain't no scriptural basis for kicking gays out of your store.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:36:30 PM EDT
[#41]
What's stupid, is this "bold legislative action" is fairly pointless. It plays to the segment of the Republican party that is socially conservative, but likes wielding big government. So it alienates small government Republicans, social liberals, ...pretty much the majority of voters. It gives Democrats ammunition to spin their agenda and win political points.
If this is chess and not checkers, then this kind of political action is stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:36:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's fascinating how "my civil rights and freedoms are more important AND trump your civil rights and freedoms..." This is the base of it all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:39:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993. Don't confuse the liberals with a fact. It messes up their hashtag bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:40:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ain't no scriptural basis for kicking gays out of your store. Well, actually, the Bible does state that homosexuality is an abomination. But, this law isn't about gays, per se. The gay community has just taken up the fight because they always have to be the oppressed party in any situation -- hurt feelings and all that. They're always looking for a fight, and have to be loud and boisterous. It's about religious freedoms such as a muslim being able to avoid preparing pork, a Christian anesthesiologist not having to assist in an abortion, a homosexual baker not having to bake 100 cakes with "God hates fags" inscribed on them for the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:41:25 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In in IN.  Well played.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:48:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm fine with it. If gays want to get married in a church and have the church recognize them then why don't they start their own damn churches and religion? Would not fit in with the forced acceptance theme. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:50:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ain't no scriptural basis for kicking gays out of your store. Sure there is. Just depends on the situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:50:33 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. This. What is the big deal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:53:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Have any of you even read what this law does?
From this article;http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?page=1 Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really a license to discriminate against gay people?
No. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else." It is almost exactly the same as the federal version. It appears the controversy over this is another attempt at creating a tempest in a teapot to further a left wing agenda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 12:54:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have any of you even read what this law does? From this article;http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?page=1 It is almost exactly the same as the federal version. It appears the controversy over this is another attempt at creating a tempest in a teapot to further a left wing agenda. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have any of you even read what this law does? From this article;http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?page=1 Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really a license to discriminate against gay people?
No. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else." It is almost exactly the same as the federal version. It appears the controversy over this is another attempt at creating a tempest in a teapot to further a left wing agenda. Yes. Basically it is a restatement of the intent of the 1st Amendment. It's disturbing that it is controversial. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
