Personally, I think the governor of Indiana should spend his time on job creation, education, infrastructure, public safety and a balanced budget.
Have there been a lot of discrimination issues with the federal law and the state laws in 20 other states, or is just political grandstanding on both sides?
Did you read that before posting? "when Iran persecutes gay people, conservatives in the United States suddenly become enamored of gay rights—and bash the Obama administration for not doing enough to defend them." "Even as conservatives fight LGBT equality at home, Puar says, they champion it overseas—as long as it serves their interests to do so." "For all these reasons, don’t expect the Obama administration, or the LGBT movement, to raise a hue and cry over this latest travesty of justice. As horrifying as this tragedy is, we might only be able to make it worse."
Seems like the article is pointing out some of the phony righteousness you are denying...?
Except I am not one of those conservatives and the phony righteousness finger is being pointed at me. I am a strong defender of equal rights but not just where it's convenient. I think this type of discrimination needs to be fought at home and abroad.
Except that you advocate for the sanctions and military actions abroad...so do you really want to fight for gay rights equally? you're using a domestic issue as a platform to promote your agenda abroad...
Amusing because you're the one who made the original observation and called out people who want peace with Iran as hypocrites. you KNOW that the same people you're attacking support lgbt rights in Iran as well. Just not thru sanctions and military actions that hurt them and their countrymen more than they help. Nice tangent.
I guess I am just confused when international boycotts because of discrimination are acceptable. All I read on here is how the world must boycott Israel because of apparent discrimination towards Palestinians but when it comes to Iran's persecution of Gays...shhhh....who are we to impose our beliefs on another culture.
Yeah...you're right...my bad. Let's put sanctions on Indiana but let's lift them on Iran.
But why do you have to bring Iran into this discussion again Iran has zero to do with Indiana & this law ...
Because gay rights should be fought for everywhere not just where it is convenient
I agree but this is about this law in Indiana , just start another thread about Iran ok so tell me what do you think about this law
I don't like this law. I don't like that 19 other states passed a similar law. I don't like the federal version that was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy and signed by Bill Clinton. I also don't like the johnny-come-lately's who only care about gay rights when it gives them an opportunity to bash a red state and/or a republican governor yet couldn't care a less when worse is done by the Ayatollah and Putin.
I guess I am just confused when international boycotts because of discrimination are acceptable. All I read on here is how the world must boycott Israel because of apparent discrimination towards Palestinians but when it comes to Iran's persecution of Gays...shhhh....who are we to impose our beliefs on another culture.
Yeah...you're right...my bad. Let's put sanctions on Indiana but let's lift them on Iran.
But why do you have to bring Iran into this discussion again Iran has zero to do with Indiana & this law ...
Because gay rights should be fought for everywhere not just where it is convenient
I agree but this is about this law in Indiana , just start another thread about Iran ok so tell me what do you think about this law
I don't like this law. I don't like that 19 other states passed a similar law. I don't like the federal version that was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy and signed by Bill Clinton. I also don't like the johnny-come-lately's who only care about gay rights when it gives them an opportunity to bash a red state and/or a republican governor yet couldn't care a less when worse is done by the Ayatollah and Putin.
Seriously, you need to stop projecting onto people you disagree with. What are you not understanding here? Who has said they couldn't care less, or shhh about iran's persecution of the gay community? Are you accusing me of that, BS? Let me repeat: the same people you're attacking support lgbt rights in Iran as well. Just not thru sanctions and military actions that hurt them and their countrymen more than they help.
Can't we move past all this nonsense. Live and let live.
The same freedoms afforded to those seeking religious freedoms should be exactly the same as the ones offered to those who choose an alternate lifestyle.Why does one belief carry more weight then the other.Stupido.
I mean it is Indiana.......
It's not a choice. There is no difference between refusing service to a gay person because they're gay and refusing it to a black person because of the colour of their skin.
Face-palm. There is a difference, simply, if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face, I as a small business owner should have the ability and freedom to refuse service. Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior? So then, you will discriminate against me for my belief system? What taboo behavior is a black man exhibiting? They are not the same, the argument that being black and being gay have the same discrimination is straw-man argument.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
Can't we move past all this nonsense. Live and let live.
The same freedoms afforded to those seeking religious freedoms should be exactly the same as the ones offered to those who choose an alternate lifestyle.Why does one belief carry more weight then the other.Stupido.
I mean it is Indiana.......
It's not a choice. There is no difference between refusing service to a gay person because they're gay and refusing it to a black person because of the colour of their skin.
Face-palm. There is a difference, simply, if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face, I as a small business owner should have the ability and freedom to refuse service. Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior? So then, you will discriminate against me for my belief system? What taboo behavior is a black man exhibiting? They are not the same, the argument that being black and being gay have the same discrimination is straw-man argument.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
I would say no. You are not being discriminated against in the context of this thread topic. No one is refusing service to you. No one is refusing to rent a home to you. No one is refusing job opportunities to you.
You have the freedom of religion which is not synonymous with the freedom to refuse service to others who fail your belief system litmus test. Refusing service to anyone based on your religious beliefs is discrimination, plain and simple.
So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but other times they haven't.
From another source: So the most controversial aspect of the Indiana law was endorsed by the Holder Justice Department. [Update: I should stress that at the time, DOJ limited the applicability of RFRA to “religious organizations,” such as Wheaton College. But following Hobby Lobby this position is no longer tenable.]
There we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA. In contrast, Mississippi’s RFRA, which only requires a “burden,” not a “substantial” one, deviates significantly from the federal statute.
I should stress–and this point was totally lost in the Indiana debate–that RFRA does not provide immunity. It only allows a defendant to raise a defense, which a finder of fact must consider, like any other defense that can be raised under Title VII or the ADA. RFRA is *not* a blank check to discriminate. So legally understanding it, it appears that RFRA in the 20th state so far to do so is not a blank check to discriminate.
I would disagree with your premise that I am discriminating based on religious beliefs. If I adhere to a moral code, why do I need to break it because someone else chooses to do so? Shouldn't I have the right to defend those beliefs, or should I roll over and blindly accept what I firmly disagree with. I believe I have a right to defend my belief and the RFRA provides that, but as Wil Wheaton says - not be a dick about it either.
Can't we move past all this nonsense. Live and let live.
The same freedoms afforded to those seeking religious freedoms should be exactly the same as the ones offered to those who choose an alternate lifestyle.Why does one belief carry more weight then the other.Stupido.
I mean it is Indiana.......
It's not a choice. There is no difference between refusing service to a gay person because they're gay and refusing it to a black person because of the colour of their skin.
Face-palm. There is a difference, simply, if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face, I as a small business owner should have the ability and freedom to refuse service. Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior? So then, you will discriminate against me for my belief system? What taboo behavior is a black man exhibiting? They are not the same, the argument that being black and being gay have the same discrimination is straw-man argument.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
But we are not refusing you a service based on your nonexistent god.
I guess I am just confused when international boycotts because of discrimination are acceptable. All I read on here is how the world must boycott Israel because of apparent discrimination towards Palestinians but when it comes to Iran's persecution of Gays...shhhh....who are we to impose our beliefs on another culture.
Yeah...you're right...my bad. Let's put sanctions on Indiana but let's lift them on Iran.
But why do you have to bring Iran into this discussion again Iran has zero to do with Indiana & this law ...
Because gay rights should be fought for everywhere not just where it is convenient
I agree but this is about this law in Indiana , just start another thread about Iran ok so tell me what do you think about this law
I don't like this law. I don't like that 19 other states passed a similar law. I don't like the federal version that was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy and signed by Bill Clinton. I also don't like the johnny-come-lately's who only care about gay rights when it gives them an opportunity to bash a red state and/or a republican governor yet couldn't care a less when worse is done by the Ayatollah and Putin.
Seriously, you need to stop projecting onto people you disagree with. What are you not understanding here? Who has said they couldn't care less, or shhh about iran's persecution of the gay community? Are you accusing me of that, BS? Let me repeat: the same people you're attacking support lgbt rights in Iran as well. Just not thru sanctions and military actions that hurt them and their countrymen more than they help.
You might support LGBT rights but at the same time you enable those regimes that are often the greatest perpetrators of their discrimination. Specifically your defence of Valdimir Putin has been exceptional.
Can't we move past all this nonsense. Live and let live.
The same freedoms afforded to those seeking religious freedoms should be exactly the same as the ones offered to those who choose an alternate lifestyle.Why does one belief carry more weight then the other.Stupido.
I mean it is Indiana.......
It's not a choice. There is no difference between refusing service to a gay person because they're gay and refusing it to a black person because of the colour of their skin.
Face-palm. There is a difference, simply, if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face, I as a small business owner should have the ability and freedom to refuse service. Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior? So then, you will discriminate against me for my belief system? What taboo behavior is a black man exhibiting? They are not the same, the argument that being black and being gay have the same discrimination is straw-man argument.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
Really? This argument isn't just about being gay.
What about if a woman wants to wave her vagina in another womans face? Or how about a transgendered woman or man? Or a hermaphrodite? Or an asexual? or people who are intersex
How about men or women who have had vasectomies or their tubes tied? They cant have sex for the purpose of making babies. You going to tell them to leave your business because they can't make babies too?
Im going to guess that atheists and agnostics aren't welcome either.
It all comes down again to the religious nuts having their heads stuck up their own ass .... Every human on this planet should have the same rights , freedom of voice , choice, sexual preference...
Can't we move past all this nonsense. Live and let live.
The same freedoms afforded to those seeking religious freedoms should be exactly the same as the ones offered to those who choose an alternate lifestyle.Why does one belief carry more weight then the other.Stupido.
I mean it is Indiana.......
It's not a choice. There is no difference between refusing service to a gay person because they're gay and refusing it to a black person because of the colour of their skin.
Face-palm. There is a difference, simply, if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face, I as a small business owner should have the ability and freedom to refuse service. Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior? So then, you will discriminate against me for my belief system? What taboo behavior is a black man exhibiting? They are not the same, the argument that being black and being gay have the same discrimination is straw-man argument.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
Wow! Talk about facepalm! You sound like you just arrived from the middle ages. "if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face," "a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?" Maybe they skipped over this at Sunday bigot training, but women have same sex relationships too! "Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior?" Can you please cite your source? What does the Bible say and how many times? The Bible also says not to judge people, but you are fine picking up that role aren't you? I assume you will also discriminate against shellfish eaters, premarital cohabiters, those with cut hair, uncircumcised men, anyone who has sex before marriage and of course anyone who has taken the Lord's name in vain...or is it just the gay thing you want to single out above all the other rules which were set forth? "Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that." Again, women too, does that not bother you cuz there's no penis involved? Sounds like you have penis issues, you only mentioned it several times in one post. I assume you have never engaged in oral sex? Or used prophylactics? Oh that's right, you probably HAVE, which makes that statement hypocritical.
You need to try, I know it will be hard, to understand that the opportunity to deny someone a right is not, and never will be, a right.
So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but other times they haven't.
From another source: So the most controversial aspect of the Indiana law was endorsed by the Holder Justice Department. [Update: I should stress that at the time, DOJ limited the applicability of RFRA to “religious organizations,” such as Wheaton College. But following Hobby Lobby this position is no longer tenable.]
There we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA. In contrast, Mississippi’s RFRA, which only requires a “burden,” not a “substantial” one, deviates significantly from the federal statute.
I should stress–and this point was totally lost in the Indiana debate–that RFRA does not provide immunity. It only allows a defendant to raise a defense, which a finder of fact must consider, like any other defense that can be raised under Title VII or the ADA. RFRA is *not* a blank check to discriminate. So legally understanding it, it appears that RFRA in the 20th state so far to do so is not a blank check to discriminate.
I would disagree with your premise that I am discriminating based on religious beliefs. If I adhere to a moral code, why do I need to break it because someone else chooses to do so? Shouldn't I have the right to defend those beliefs, or should I roll over and blindly accept what I firmly disagree with. I believe I have a right to defend my belief and the RFRA provides that, but as Wil Wheaton says - not be a dick about it either.
Refusing someone service because you think you have moral superiority IS being a dick about it!
Gambs,just taking the few sentences you highlighted it really frames the mindset of a large part of the population. Kinda scary to think that so many are ignorant and closed minded I wish the bible thumpers would just enjoy their own little world of worship and let the rest of society live and love as they see fit.Damn its 2015 Arent we way past the "Jesus doesn't love gays" thing.Sheesh
Btw- not everyday we get classics like "Shove his penis into another mans anus" or the colorful "waving his penis in another mans face" And of course and I'm paraphrasing here the whole "butt baby" part. "Just good clean family fun here cotton"
Gambs,just taking the few sentences you highlighted it really frames the mindset of a large part of the population. Kinda scary to think that so many are ignorant and closed minded I wish the bible thumpers would just enjoy their own little world of worship and let the rest of society live and love as they see fit.Damn its 2015 Arent we way past the "Jesus doesn't love gays" thing.Sheesh
Btw- not everyday we get classics like "Shove his penis into another mans anus" or the colorful "waving his penis in another mans face" And of course and I'm paraphrasing here the whole "butt baby" part. "Just good clean family fun here cotton"
It totally is flabbergasting that a big % of population in this country still live like it's 1956 .....wake up white people , Stern use to have the KKK guy say this all the time lol
Gambs,just taking the few sentences you highlighted it really frames the mindset of a large part of the population. Kinda scary to think that so many are ignorant and closed minded I wish the bible thumpers would just enjoy their own little world of worship and let the rest of society live and love as they see fit.Damn its 2015 Arent we way past the "Jesus doesn't love gays" thing.Sheesh
Btw- not everyday we get classics like "Shove his penis into another mans anus" or the colorful "waving his penis in another mans face" And of course and I'm paraphrasing here the whole "butt baby" part. "Just good clean family fun here cotton"
Hahhaa that's my favorite Jason Bateman role ever! Imagine how funny a movie just about those two would be! Funnier than Dodgeball lol!
It amuses me how homophobes use agressive, sometimes extreme language to describe homosexual relations. They think words like "waving penis" and "shove...anus" are going to disgust people enough to get them on their side. Is that how heterosexual couples do it? Does the penis get shoved into the vagina after being waved in the face? Lol of course not, but let's make them look depraved and we can score points with the Neanderthals who can't rise above their fathers' hypermasculine homophobia. And it works on the troglodytes, but civil folk just get a laugh.
Did you read that before posting? "when Iran persecutes gay people, conservatives in the United States suddenly become enamored of gay rights—and bash the Obama administration for not doing enough to defend them." "Even as conservatives fight LGBT equality at home, Puar says, they champion it overseas—as long as it serves their interests to do so." "For all these reasons, don’t expect the Obama administration, or the LGBT movement, to raise a hue and cry over this latest travesty of justice. As horrifying as this tragedy is, we might only be able to make it worse."
Seems like the article is pointing out some of the phony righteousness you are denying...?
Except I am not one of those conservatives and the phony righteousness finger is being pointed at me. I am a strong defender of equal rights but not just where it's convenient. I think this type of discrimination needs to be fought at home and abroad.
Your post is full of shit just like you. Strong defender of equal rights? Hahaha, more comedy out of your mouth. You HATE Muslims and are even trying to hijack this thread and make it about Muslims. You are a fucken phony and a joke.
Did you read that before posting? "when Iran persecutes gay people, conservatives in the United States suddenly become enamored of gay rights—and bash the Obama administration for not doing enough to defend them." "Even as conservatives fight LGBT equality at home, Puar says, they champion it overseas—as long as it serves their interests to do so." "For all these reasons, don’t expect the Obama administration, or the LGBT movement, to raise a hue and cry over this latest travesty of justice. As horrifying as this tragedy is, we might only be able to make it worse."
Seems like the article is pointing out some of the phony righteousness you are denying...?
Except I am not one of those conservatives and the phony righteousness finger is being pointed at me. I am a strong defender of equal rights but not just where it's convenient. I think this type of discrimination needs to be fought at home and abroad.
Your post is full of shit just like you. Strong defender of equal rights? Hahaha, more comedy out of your mouth. You HATE Muslims and are even trying to hijack this thread and make it about Muslims. You are a fucken phony and a joke.
Ha...it is amazing how you have lost all ability for rational discourse. This law was actually used in Arkansas to protect Muslims. The prison system wanted to have it's Islamic inmates shave their beards. The law prevented muslims from having their rights infringed. I don't like the law but I'm sure you weren't aware of that and probably would have called the state racist for insisting on those beards being shaved.
Also Barak Obama supported and voted for this law in Illinois and no one here seems to care.
Can't we move past all this nonsense. Live and let live.
The same freedoms afforded to those seeking religious freedoms should be exactly the same as the ones offered to those who choose an alternate lifestyle.Why does one belief carry more weight then the other.Stupido.
I mean it is Indiana.......
It's not a choice. There is no difference between refusing service to a gay person because they're gay and refusing it to a black person because of the colour of their skin.
Face-palm. There is a difference, simply, if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face, I as a small business owner should have the ability and freedom to refuse service. Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior? So then, you will discriminate against me for my belief system? What taboo behavior is a black man exhibiting? They are not the same, the argument that being black and being gay have the same discrimination is straw-man argument.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
Two males having consensual sex is not taboo. It's 2015, get with the times.
Did you read that before posting? "when Iran persecutes gay people, conservatives in the United States suddenly become enamored of gay rights—and bash the Obama administration for not doing enough to defend them." "Even as conservatives fight LGBT equality at home, Puar says, they champion it overseas—as long as it serves their interests to do so." "For all these reasons, don’t expect the Obama administration, or the LGBT movement, to raise a hue and cry over this latest travesty of justice. As horrifying as this tragedy is, we might only be able to make it worse."
Seems like the article is pointing out some of the phony righteousness you are denying...?
Except I am not one of those conservatives and the phony righteousness finger is being pointed at me. I am a strong defender of equal rights but not just where it's convenient. I think this type of discrimination needs to be fought at home and abroad.
Your post is full of shit just like you. Strong defender of equal rights? Hahaha, more comedy out of your mouth. You HATE Muslims and are even trying to hijack this thread and make it about Muslims. You are a fucken phony and a joke.
Ha...it is amazing how you have lost all ability for rational discourse. This law was actually used in Arkansas to protect Muslims. The prison system wanted to have it's Islamic inmates shave their beards. The law prevented muslims from having their rights infringed. I don't like the law but I'm sure you weren't aware of that and probably would have called the state racist for insisting on those beards being shaved.
Also Barak Obama supported and voted for this law in Illinois and no one here seems to care.
Today is the first day I even heard about this law or anything about it. Haven't been keeping up so I don't know the full details. My reference was about how you try to make this about Iran (Muslim country) somehow. To justify you wanting us Americans to bomb the shit out of another Muslim country. Don't sit here and pretend you have an ounce of care about this law effecting Muslims and that you're standing up for them, cuz you know, we can read between your lines. Equal rights he says. Haha, to funny
Edit- I don't throw around the racist label around like you throw the anti-Semite card. Just saying
Can't we move past all this nonsense. Live and let live.
The same freedoms afforded to those seeking religious freedoms should be exactly the same as the ones offered to those who choose an alternate lifestyle.Why does one belief carry more weight then the other.Stupido.
I mean it is Indiana.......
It's not a choice. There is no difference between refusing service to a gay person because they're gay and refusing it to a black person because of the colour of their skin.
Face-palm. There is a difference, simply, if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face, I as a small business owner should have the ability and freedom to refuse service. Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior? So then, you will discriminate against me for my belief system? What taboo behavior is a black man exhibiting? They are not the same, the argument that being black and being gay have the same discrimination is straw-man argument.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
Wow. Well holy shit. But okay, so sex should only ever be had of a baby can result from it? So women have to stop it once they hit menopause or if they are infertile for any reason? Sterile men have to be celibate?
Also... how was it for you when you had to make the choice to be heterosexual? Tell me about that, because I don't remember the day I made my decision. It's almost like I was born thst way. Weird, huh? Also, if some asshole told you you had to be celibate and not express your love for a woman or else you lose rights, how would that make you feel? You'd be cool with just never having sex again, right?
Do you really think that sexuality is simply about sticking a dick somewhere? Are you a caveman with Internet access? If so, please post a photo.
Homophobia isn't just about a bunch of perverts being overly concerned about where other guys stick their dicks (you may want to see someone about that btw). It's about people trying to stop others from LOVING who they love and expressing that love in a human way without suffering discrimination.
Pro-choice is about women choosing what happens to their own bodies (against though I wouldn't be surprised to learn thst you think you can dictate what women do with their own bodies). Pro-choice is not about choosing what OTHER people can and can't do based on discrimination. I can't even believe you are able to compare pro-choice with the right to discriminate against others. What the fucking fuck?
PS - you do know that no one is asking you to stick your penis into an anus or vice versa, right? Just checking.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
JM has fired up a hornet's nest. He definitely needs to respond to several of these posts, but don't hold your breath for too long folks and there's no need to pile on at the moment- he's in church right now learning how to be a better human being.
JM has fired up a hornet's nest. He definitely needs to respond to several of these posts, but don't hold your breath for too long folks and there's no need to pile on at the moment- he's in church right now learning how to be a better human being.
Hahahaha!
Are we sure JM is a he? Definitely sounds like a he but maybe that's a false assumption.
Comments
Have there been a lot of discrimination issues with the federal law and the state laws in 20 other states, or is just political grandstanding on both sides?
Amusing because you're the one who made the original observation and called out people who want peace with Iran as hypocrites. you KNOW that the same people you're attacking support lgbt rights in Iran as well. Just not thru sanctions and military actions that hurt them and their countrymen more than they help.
Nice tangent.
Anyway...sorry folks, carry on.
Let me repeat: the same people you're attacking support lgbt rights in Iran as well. Just not thru sanctions and military actions that hurt them and their countrymen more than they help.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
You have the freedom of religion which is not synonymous with the freedom to refuse service to others who fail your belief system litmus test. Refusing service to anyone based on your religious beliefs is discrimination, plain and simple.
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but other times they haven't.
From another source:
So the most controversial aspect of the Indiana law was endorsed by the Holder Justice Department. [Update: I should stress that at the time, DOJ limited the applicability of RFRA to “religious organizations,” such as Wheaton College. But following Hobby Lobby this position is no longer tenable.]
There we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA. In contrast, Mississippi’s RFRA, which only requires a “burden,” not a “substantial” one, deviates significantly from the federal statute.
I should stress–and this point was totally lost in the Indiana debate–that RFRA does not provide immunity. It only allows a defendant to raise a defense, which a finder of fact must consider, like any other defense that can be raised under Title VII or the ADA. RFRA is *not* a blank check to discriminate.
So legally understanding it, it appears that RFRA in the 20th state so far to do so is not a blank check to discriminate.
I would disagree with your premise that I am discriminating based on religious beliefs. If I adhere to a moral code, why do I need to break it because someone else chooses to do so? Shouldn't I have the right to defend those beliefs, or should I roll over and blindly accept what I firmly disagree with. I believe I have a right to defend my belief and the RFRA provides that, but as Wil Wheaton says - not be a dick about it either.
This argument isn't just about being gay.
What about if a woman wants to wave her vagina in another womans face?
Or how about a transgendered woman or man?
Or a hermaphrodite?
Or an asexual?
or people who are intersex
How about men or women who have had vasectomies or their tubes tied?
They cant have sex for the purpose of making babies.
You going to tell them to leave your business because they can't make babies too?
Im going to guess that atheists and agnostics aren't welcome either.
As a great philosopher once said.....
Haters gonna hate
"if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face,"
"a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?"
Maybe they skipped over this at Sunday bigot training, but women have same sex relationships too!
"Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior?"
Can you please cite your source? What does the Bible say and how many times? The Bible also says not to judge people, but you are fine picking up that role aren't you? I assume you will also discriminate against shellfish eaters, premarital cohabiters, those with cut hair, uncircumcised men, anyone who has sex before marriage and of course anyone who has taken the Lord's name in vain...or is it just the gay thing you want to single out above all the other rules which were set forth?
"Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that."
Again, women too, does that not bother you cuz there's no penis involved? Sounds like you have penis issues, you only mentioned it several times in one post. I assume you have never engaged in oral sex? Or used prophylactics? Oh that's right, you probably HAVE, which makes that statement hypocritical.
You need to try, I know it will be hard, to understand that the opportunity to deny someone a right is not, and never will be, a right.
Kinda scary to think that so many are ignorant and closed minded I wish the bible thumpers would just enjoy their own little world of worship and let the rest of society live and love as they see fit.Damn its 2015 Arent we way past the "Jesus doesn't love gays" thing.Sheesh
Btw- not everyday we get classics like "Shove his penis into another mans anus" or the colorful "waving his penis in another mans face"
And of course and I'm paraphrasing here the whole "butt baby" part.
"Just good clean family fun here cotton"
It amuses me how homophobes use agressive, sometimes extreme language to describe homosexual relations. They think words like "waving penis" and "shove...anus" are going to disgust people enough to get them on their side.
Is that how heterosexual couples do it? Does the penis get shoved into the vagina after being waved in the face? Lol of course not, but let's make them look depraved and we can score points with the Neanderthals who can't rise above their fathers' hypermasculine homophobia. And it works on the troglodytes, but civil folk just get a laugh.
Also Barak Obama supported and voted for this law in Illinois and no one here seems to care.
Edit- I don't throw around the racist label around like you throw the anti-Semite card. Just saying
But okay, so sex should only ever be had of a baby can result from it? So women have to stop it once they hit menopause or if they are infertile for any reason? Sterile men have to be celibate?
Also... how was it for you when you had to make the choice to be heterosexual? Tell me about that, because I don't remember the day I made my decision. It's almost like I was born thst way. Weird, huh? Also, if some asshole told you you had to be celibate and not express your love for a woman or else you lose rights, how would that make you feel? You'd be cool with just never having sex again, right?
Do you really think that sexuality is simply about sticking a dick somewhere? Are you a caveman with Internet access? If so, please post a photo.
Homophobia isn't just about a bunch of perverts being overly concerned about where other guys stick their dicks (you may want to see someone about that btw). It's about people trying to stop others from LOVING who they love and expressing that love in a human way without suffering discrimination.
Pro-choice is about women choosing what happens to their own bodies (against though I wouldn't be surprised to learn thst you think you can dictate what women do with their own bodies). Pro-choice is not about choosing what OTHER people can and can't do based on discrimination. I can't even believe you are able to compare pro-choice with the right to discriminate against others. What the fucking fuck?
PS - you do know that no one is asking you to stick your penis into an anus or vice versa, right? Just checking.
Are we sure JM is a he? Definitely sounds like a he but maybe that's a false assumption.
Hey Indiana & states that discriminate against gays: if you wanna live in the past, fine. But when we get spaceships, no spaceships for you.