Indiana Religious Liberties law....

BS44325

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

No matter how the GOP try to spin this it still reaks of bigotry its fucking 2015 & they are living in 1956 and soon as they get a republican president we will be in a war against Iran ......

That is just silly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/everybody-s-lost-their-goddamn-mind-over-religious-freedom.html

Just like a republican spin spin spin it must feel good to be one ....

Nope. I don't like the law. If you read through these posts and others you would know that. On another thread I argued a women shouldn't be allowed to wear a niqab at a Canadian citizenship oath and I was told by a lot of the angry people on here that I wasn't accepting of religious freedom. I just hate the faux outrage. People who believe in gay rights when it's convenient yet want to make peace with an Iranian theocracy that hangs gays on a daily basis.

BS44325

Let's go back to 1956...um...I mean 1993

http://youtu.be/4YtyUXnBhXU

How will Hillary spin this?

PJ_Soul

badbrains said:

PJ_Soul said:

Lol!
I really mean God. The guy is a born again. All those politics aside, him and Laura thought that God had chosen them.

Sorry, but you really don't know the family then.

Yes I do. They can be both what you're saying and what I'm saying - not sure why you don't think so. Hypocrisy isn't exactly ruled out in this scenario!

josevolution

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

No matter how the GOP try to spin this it still reaks of bigotry its fucking 2015 & they are living in 1956 and soon as they get a republican president we will be in a war against Iran ......

That is just silly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/everybody-s-lost-their-goddamn-mind-over-religious-freedom.html

I guess you didn't hear your boy Bohner I quote now " President Obama is anti war " look it up

rgambs

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

No matter how the GOP try to spin this it still reaks of bigotry its fucking 2015 & they are living in 1956 and soon as they get a republican president we will be in a war against Iran ......

That is just silly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/everybody-s-lost-their-goddamn-mind-over-religious-freedom.html

Just like a republican spin spin spin it must feel good to be one ....

Nope. I don't like the law. If you read through these posts and others you would know that. On another thread I argued a women shouldn't be allowed to wear a niqab at a Canadian citizenship oath and I was told by a lot of the angry people on here that I wasn't accepting of religious freedom. I just hate the faux outrage. People who believe in gay rights when it's convenient yet want to make peace with an Iranian theocracy that hangs gays on a daily basis.

Just in case you didn't know, this line of talk, along with playing soundbites of Clinton signing the Federal version are exactly what Limbaugh and Hannity are up to in this fracas.

Iran has nothing to do with this, nothing at all. The only reason Iran has been inserted into this issue is because it's the soup du jour in bash Obama land.
Referencing Clinton is idiotic, as it has been shown that this Indiana law is substantially different from the Federal version in both content and intent.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

No matter how the GOP try to spin this it still reaks of bigotry its fucking 2015 & they are living in 1956 and soon as they get a republican president we will be in a war against Iran ......

That is just silly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/everybody-s-lost-their-goddamn-mind-over-religious-freedom.html

Just like a republican spin spin spin it must feel good to be one ....

Nope. I don't like the law. If you read through these posts and others you would know that. On another thread I argued a women shouldn't be allowed to wear a niqab at a Canadian citizenship oath and I was told by a lot of the angry people on here that I wasn't accepting of religious freedom. I just hate the faux outrage. People who believe in gay rights when it's convenient yet want to make peace with an Iranian theocracy that hangs gays on a daily basis.

Well doing anything that will keep Iran from progressing economically and cooperating with the West certainly isn't going to help gay Iranians. Isolating Iran would make things worse for them, not better. The only way for nations to progress socially (for gay rights, women's rights, religious freedom) is for them to be more involved and engaged internationally.

mickeyrat

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/dont-blame-christianity-for-your-homophobia.html?utm_content=opinion&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow

josevolution

Pence didn't even have the balls to sign the new adjusted bill in public he did it in private what an ass , what a joke these homophobic Republicans really are ....

BS44325

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

No matter how the GOP try to spin this it still reaks of bigotry its fucking 2015 & they are living in 1956 and soon as they get a republican president we will be in a war against Iran ......

That is just silly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/everybody-s-lost-their-goddamn-mind-over-religious-freedom.html

Just like a republican spin spin spin it must feel good to be one ....

Nope. I don't like the law. If you read through these posts and others you would know that. On another thread I argued a women shouldn't be allowed to wear a niqab at a Canadian citizenship oath and I was told by a lot of the angry people on here that I wasn't accepting of religious freedom. I just hate the faux outrage. People who believe in gay rights when it's convenient yet want to make peace with an Iranian theocracy that hangs gays on a daily basis.

Just in case you didn't know, this line of talk, along with playing soundbites of Clinton signing the Federal version are exactly what Limbaugh and Hannity are up to in this fracas.

Iran has nothing to do with this, nothing at all. The only reason Iran has been inserted into this issue is because it's the soup du jour in bash Obama land.
Referencing Clinton is idiotic, as it has been shown that this Indiana law is substantially different from the Federal version in both content and intent.

The only thing "substantially" different is the outrage. Must constantly be outraged.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

No matter how the GOP try to spin this it still reaks of bigotry its fucking 2015 & they are living in 1956 and soon as they get a republican president we will be in a war against Iran ......

That is just silly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/everybody-s-lost-their-goddamn-mind-over-religious-freedom.html

Just like a republican spin spin spin it must feel good to be one ....

Nope. I don't like the law. If you read through these posts and others you would know that. On another thread I argued a women shouldn't be allowed to wear a niqab at a Canadian citizenship oath and I was told by a lot of the angry people on here that I wasn't accepting of religious freedom. I just hate the faux outrage. People who believe in gay rights when it's convenient yet want to make peace with an Iranian theocracy that hangs gays on a daily basis.

Just in case you didn't know, this line of talk, along with playing soundbites of Clinton signing the Federal version are exactly what Limbaugh and Hannity are up to in this fracas.

Iran has nothing to do with this, nothing at all. The only reason Iran has been inserted into this issue is because it's the soup du jour in bash Obama land.
Referencing Clinton is idiotic, as it has been shown that this Indiana law is substantially different from the Federal version in both content and intent.

The only thing "substantially" different is the outrage. Must constantly be outraged.

You seriously don't think the inclusion of businesses instead of just individuals is substantial?
You seriously don't think the inclusion of civil suits to which the government is not a party instead of just cases of government intrusion is substantial?

I don't know if you listen to Rush Limbaugh or not, but I do (know thy enemy) and you mirror his sentiments on this board almost verbatim.

BS44325

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

No matter how the GOP try to spin this it still reaks of bigotry its fucking 2015 & they are living in 1956 and soon as they get a republican president we will be in a war against Iran ......

That is just silly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/01/everybody-s-lost-their-goddamn-mind-over-religious-freedom.html

Just like a republican spin spin spin it must feel good to be one ....

Nope. I don't like the law. If you read through these posts and others you would know that. On another thread I argued a women shouldn't be allowed to wear a niqab at a Canadian citizenship oath and I was told by a lot of the angry people on here that I wasn't accepting of religious freedom. I just hate the faux outrage. People who believe in gay rights when it's convenient yet want to make peace with an Iranian theocracy that hangs gays on a daily basis.

Just in case you didn't know, this line of talk, along with playing soundbites of Clinton signing the Federal version are exactly what Limbaugh and Hannity are up to in this fracas.

Iran has nothing to do with this, nothing at all. The only reason Iran has been inserted into this issue is because it's the soup du jour in bash Obama land.
Referencing Clinton is idiotic, as it has been shown that this Indiana law is substantially different from the Federal version in both content and intent.

The only thing "substantially" different is the outrage. Must constantly be outraged.

You seriously don't think the inclusion of businesses instead of just individuals is substantial?
You seriously don't think the inclusion of civil suits to which the government is not a party instead of just cases of government intrusion is substantial?

I don't know if you listen to Rush Limbaugh or not, but I do (know thy enemy) and you mirror his sentiments on this board almost verbatim.

I don't get Rush in Canada. Plus I would assume he supports the law and I don't.

hedonist

BS44325 said:

I don't get Rush in Canada. Plus I would assume he supports the law and I don't.

Oh yes you do - just the better version

BS44325

hedonist said:

BS44325 said:

I don't get Rush in Canada. Plus I would assume he supports the law and I don't.

Oh yes you do - just the better version

Ha! Excellent Hedo!

j1kotwic

I don't think this whole Indiana debacle has anything to do with discrimination. A business cannot refuse services to someone simply because of their religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, race, etc... This all started from the bakery that didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. The baker wasn't comfortable with providing services for an event that conflicts with his/her religious or moral beliefs. So go to another bakery. Boycott them. They'll probably go out of business. What that law was about was to give the business owner the right to defend their actions in court and nothing else. It doesn't make it legal to discriminate against gay people.

Last-12-Exit

j1kotwic said:

I don't think this whole Indiana debacle has anything to do with discrimination. A business cannot refuse services to someone simply because of their religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, race, etc... This all started from the bakery that didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. The baker wasn't comfortable with providing services for an event that conflicts with his/her religious or moral beliefs. So go to another bakery. Boycott them. They'll probably go out of business. What that law was about was to give the business owner the right to defend their actions in court and nothing else. It doesn't make it legal to discriminate against gay people.

That's a cop out argument. It's still discrimination. I don't remember seeing anything in the bible about making a cake for a gay wedding.

You can word it however you want. The bottom line is that it's discrimination. And this law provides business's an Avenue to do it legally.

PJ_Soul

^^ Agreed. The PC police run in both directions. Apparently now it's un-PC to accuse bigots of discrimination.

Dirtie_Frank

Will this bakery be boycotted too and similar demonstrations against it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

muskydan

Dirtie_Frank said:

Will this bakery be boycotted too and similar demonstrations against it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

How about dem Apples....interesting stuff there

BS44325

Dirtie_Frank said:

Will this bakery be boycotted too and similar demonstrations against it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

Of course they won't be boycotted. People only care about what christian conservatives do.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Will this bakery be boycotted too and similar demonstrations against it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

Of course they won't be boycotted. People only care about what christian conservatives do.

It never even occured to me to compartmentalize these bigots actually. In couldn't care less what religion is dictating their bigotry.

I don't understand why people keep bringing up gay rights in the middle east when discussing this btw. This is happen in America, where the laws actually are supposed to protect equality for all.

The guy in that video is full of shit btw.