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.
Damn I've been doing that a lot lately- assuming crap.
I need to go find my10C forum manual that came with initial membership and review policies and personal conduct expectations.
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 can't stop laughing at your convictions mixed with a waving penis, I really can't Seriously I can barely type as I laugh at this.
this fucker called god seems to wave his penis wherever and whenever he wants in all our faces and the people who disagree are going to hell - that's fucked.
Really, the whole premise is ridiculous. People can run their private business as they see fit, and if that includes refusing service to anyone for whatever religious or moral reason, so be it. I imagine the backlash/repercussions/lack of clientele would speak louder volumes.
I can only imagine the gay-owned businesses refusing to serve straight patrons. What purpose would it serve?
Now extend that to housing, employment, etc...I'll never understand how the fact that someone is different from another precluding renting to or hiring one who meets the requirements, is a perfect fit, responsible, qualified, and on...simply because they're gay?
Really, the whole premise is ridiculous. People can run their private business as they see fit, and if that includes refusing service to anyone for whatever religious or moral reason, so be it. I imagine the backlash/repercussions/lack of clientele would speak louder volumes.
I can only imagine the gay-owned businesses refusing to serve straight patrons. What purpose would it serve?
Now extend that to housing, employment, etc...I'll never understand how the fact that someone is different from another precluding renting to or hiring one who meets the requirements, is a perfect fit, responsible, qualified, and on...simply because they're gay?
Nope and nope.
So people can refuse services to black people now? Or Christians? When did that become legal?
All I have to do is say it's against my religion? Awesome. Where's my expired KKK membership card?
Really, the whole premise is ridiculous. People can run their private business as they see fit, and if that includes refusing service to anyone for whatever religious or moral reason, so be it. I imagine the backlash/repercussions/lack of clientele would speak louder volumes.
I can only imagine the gay-owned businesses refusing to serve straight patrons. What purpose would it serve?
Now extend that to housing, employment, etc...I'll never understand how the fact that someone is different from another precluding renting to or hiring one who meets the requirements, is a perfect fit, responsible, qualified, and on...simply because they're gay?
Nope and nope.
So people can refuse services to black people now? Or Christians? When did that become legal?
All I have to do is say it's against my religion? Awesome. Where's my expired KKK membership card?
Shit, I never knew I had a friend in the KKK, deleting contact now.
That post was a response to your second sentence. Not the rest of your post hedo.
As to the second sentence - nooo. Not at all or even close, and I'm more than surprised - given all of my posts - it would be taken that way. *edit - I thought my third sentence stated as much as the clarification below?
To clarify - I'm saying that if business owners employ these tactics - legal or not - common sense will prevail and the business will suffer for its choices.
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.
Damn I've been doing that a lot lately- assuming crap.
I need to go find my10C forum manual that came with initial membership and review policies and personal conduct expectations.
Sorry Thirty.The manual is not written in Canadian.so if you need me to translate let me know.
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 can't stop laughing at your convictions mixed with a waving penis, I really can't Seriously I can barely type as I laugh at this.
this fucker called god seems to wave his penis wherever and whenever he wants in all our faces and the people who disagree are going to hell - that's fucked.
Well, Pence is in some hot water and says clarification is needed. I am curious what you all think about these situations:
1) Should a priest who believes that gay marriage be a sin be compelled to officiate a gay wedding, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
2) Should a church that does not recognize gay marraige be compelled to allow a gay marraige ceremony in its church, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
No to both. In neither case do commerce laws apply. If a business is open to the public it has to abide by the laws that govern public commerce.
Agree
See, this is part of what I think the law is there to protect churches, organizations, etc... from. It is a different story though if you are renting a home, operating a restaurant, etc.... The law is also there for many non LBGT reasons as well (hence the law in 20 states and on the federal books).
I think before declaring the governor and residents of Indiana bigots, or boycotting the state, both sides need to look at the law from more than one persective and find a way to change it so that there is a healthy balance of protection of religion and protection from discrimination. That is not how this country, government, corporations and the media works anymore unfortunately
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.
Damn I've been doing that a lot lately- assuming crap.
I need to go find my10C forum manual that came with initial membership and review policies and personal conduct expectations.
Sorry Thirty.The manual is not written in Canadian.so if you need me to translate let me know.
Well, Pence is in some hot water and says clarification is needed. I am curious what you all think about these situations:
1) Should a priest who believes that gay marriage be a sin be compelled to officiate a gay wedding, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
2) Should a church that does not recognize gay marraige be compelled to allow a gay marraige ceremony in its church, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
No to both. In neither case do commerce laws apply. If a business is open to the public it has to abide by the laws that govern public commerce.
Agree
See, this is part of what I think the law is there to protect churches, organizations, etc... from. It is a different story though if you are renting a home, operating a restaurant, etc.... The law is also there for many non LBGT reasons as well (hence the law in 20 states and on the federal books).
I think before declaring the governor and residents of Indiana bigots, or boycotting the state, both sides need to look at the law from more than one persective and find a way to change it so that there is a healthy balance of protection of religion and protection from discrimination. That is not how this country, government, corporations and the media works anymore unfortunately
I agree that the gun has been jumped a bit here, but that is how voting with your wallet works... We won't have to find out if this law serves discrimination because the pressure is enormous enough that the law will be clarified to prevent discrimination. The boycotts wont last precisely because they are already achieving the desired effect.
They aren't all the same law though. Indiana's law is very broad and unspecified, leaving a greater potential for abuse. From a CNN article:
"The law in Indiana, though, as well as the slew of other states it follows, came after an outcry from social conservative circles over incidents where business owners found themselves in hot water after refusing services to gay couples planning to get married.
In addition to those 20 states, legislators in nine other states have introduced similar types of "religious freedom" laws -- bills that either failed to go through in 2014 or are still up for consideration this year.
But Adam Talbot, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, stressed that those 20 laws are "dramatically different in their scope and effect."
"Calling them similar in this way risks being misleading. Indiana is the broadest and most dangerous law of its kind in the country," Talbot said.
Arkansas' legislature passed an Indiana-style law on Friday, which now heads to the state's governor for approval.
Religious liberty -- and using it to push back against same-sex marriage and other gay rights -- has become the rallying cry for the social conservative movement in the last year as these groups have watched one anti-gay marriage law after the next tumble in the courts.
And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.
One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage."
"The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that," Toobin said. The political calculation that states are going to have to make is, is the reward from the religious groups greater than the cost in lost business."
Have these "religious freedom restoration" laws already been used as legal defenses?
Yup. The Human Rights Campaign pointed CNN to several cases in which individuals have used these laws in court -- and not just in cases involving LGBT people and weddings.
A police officer in Oklahoma claimed a religious objection when he refused to police a mosque. A police officer in Salt Lake City cited his "religious liberty" when he refused to police a gay pride parade.
A photographer in New Mexico used religious freedom as a defense for not serving a lesbian couple in 2013."
They aren't all the same law though. Indiana's law is very broad and unspecified, leaving a greater potential for abuse. From a CNN article:
"The law in Indiana, though, as well as the slew of other states it follows, came after an outcry from social conservative circles over incidents where business owners found themselves in hot water after refusing services to gay couples planning to get married.
In addition to those 20 states, legislators in nine other states have introduced similar types of "religious freedom" laws -- bills that either failed to go through in 2014 or are still up for consideration this year.
But Adam Talbot, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, stressed that those 20 laws are "dramatically different in their scope and effect."
"Calling them similar in this way risks being misleading. Indiana is the broadest and most dangerous law of its kind in the country," Talbot said.
Arkansas' legislature passed an Indiana-style law on Friday, which now heads to the state's governor for approval.
Religious liberty -- and using it to push back against same-sex marriage and other gay rights -- has become the rallying cry for the social conservative movement in the last year as these groups have watched one anti-gay marriage law after the next tumble in the courts.
And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.
One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage."
"The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that," Toobin said. The political calculation that states are going to have to make is, is the reward from the religious groups greater than the cost in lost business."
Have these "religious freedom restoration" laws already been used as legal defenses?
Yup. The Human Rights Campaign pointed CNN to several cases in which individuals have used these laws in court -- and not just in cases involving LGBT people and weddings.
A police officer in Oklahoma claimed a religious objection when he refused to police a mosque. A police officer in Salt Lake City cited his "religious liberty" when he refused to police a gay pride parade.
A photographer in New Mexico used religious freedom as a defense for not serving a lesbian couple in 2013."
Looks like someone isn't reading their own articles before posting. No surprise there.
That post was a response to your second sentence. Not the rest of your post hedo.
As to the second sentence - nooo. Not at all or even close, and I'm more than surprised - given all of my posts - it would be taken that way. *edit - I thought my third sentence stated as much as the clarification below?
To clarify - I'm saying that if business owners employ these tactics - legal or not - common sense will prevail and the business will suffer for its choices.
Gonna go lick my wounds now
I wasn't sure if you were jumping on both sides of the fence on this one. So I addressed the one sectence I disagreed with.
Why would I do that? Why would I not be afforded the benefit of the doubt instead of villified? I'm not some fly-by-night. And again, what followed my supposed KKK auto-membership was ignored.
I'll take the subsequent silence / write-offs (it is tax season) toward my earlier response to a couple of posts that took me for quite a loop for what it appears to be. Gotta say that quick judgment by you and BB, you two of all people, pretty unfair. And given my respect for you both, was hurtful.
Anyway, not much more I can say from here. Don't need to defend myself at all.
Well, Pence is in some hot water and says clarification is needed. I am curious what you all think about these situations:
1) Should a priest who believes that gay marriage be a sin be compelled to officiate a gay wedding, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
2) Should a church that does not recognize gay marraige be compelled to allow a gay marraige ceremony in its church, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
No to both. In neither case do commerce laws apply. If a business is open to the public it has to abide by the laws that govern public commerce.
Agree
See, this is part of what I think the law is there to protect churches, organizations, etc... from. It is a different story though if you are renting a home, operating a restaurant, etc.... The law is also there for many non LBGT reasons as well (hence the law in 20 states and on the federal books).
I think before declaring the governor and residents of Indiana bigots, or boycotting the state, both sides need to look at the law from more than one persective and find a way to change it so that there is a healthy balance of protection of religion and protection from discrimination. That is not how this country, government, corporations and the media works anymore unfortunately
As soeone born and raised in Indiana, I can honestly say that there a lot of bigots and racists in the state. My father in law, who supported the law in Arizona and was angry that the governor vetoed it, it one of them.
Obviously I know less than one half of one percent of all of the people that live in the state. But I did live in the sticks and in a couple of the cities. It's alarming to me how many people are bigots.
And just because it's against your religion, doesn't mean your not a bigot if you think this law isn't discrimination.
Well, Pence is in some hot water and says clarification is needed. I am curious what you all think about these situations:
1) Should a priest who believes that gay marriage be a sin be compelled to officiate a gay wedding, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
2) Should a church that does not recognize gay marraige be compelled to allow a gay marraige ceremony in its church, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
No to both. In neither case do commerce laws apply. If a business is open to the public it has to abide by the laws that govern public commerce.
Agree
See, this is part of what I think the law is there to protect churches, organizations, etc... from. It is a different story though if you are renting a home, operating a restaurant, etc.... The law is also there for many non LBGT reasons as well (hence the law in 20 states and on the federal books).
I think before declaring the governor and residents of Indiana bigots, or boycotting the state, both sides need to look at the law from more than one persective and find a way to change it so that there is a healthy balance of protection of religion and protection from discrimination. That is not how this country, government, corporations and the media works anymore unfortunately
As soeone born and raised in Indiana, I can honestly say that there a lot of bigots and racists in the state. My father in law, who supported the law in Arizona and was angry that the governor vetoed it, it one of them.
Obviously I know less than one half of one percent of all of the people that live in the state. But I did live in the sticks and in a couple of the cities. It's alarming to me how many people are bigots.
And just because it's against your religion, doesn't mean your not a bigot if you think this law isn't discrimination.
Rural Ohio is pretty similar. Lots of half-ass bigots and half-ass racists. I call them half-ass because they don't truly hate, they are just stubborn and set in seriously backwards ways. They wouldn't do anything to hurt an individual in real life, but they consistently vote to hurt large groups of people... They are better than true bigots and racists, but they still cause way too much trouble.
Well, Pence is in some hot water and says clarification is needed. I am curious what you all think about these situations:
1) Should a priest who believes that gay marriage be a sin be compelled to officiate a gay wedding, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
2) Should a church that does not recognize gay marraige be compelled to allow a gay marraige ceremony in its church, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
No to both. In neither case do commerce laws apply. If a business is open to the public it has to abide by the laws that govern public commerce.
Agree
See, this is part of what I think the law is there to protect churches, organizations, etc... from. It is a different story though if you are renting a home, operating a restaurant, etc.... The law is also there for many non LBGT reasons as well (hence the law in 20 states and on the federal books).
I think before declaring the governor and residents of Indiana bigots, or boycotting the state, both sides need to look at the law from more than one persective and find a way to change it so that there is a healthy balance of protection of religion and protection from discrimination. That is not how this country, government, corporations and the media works anymore unfortunately
As soeone born and raised in Indiana, I can honestly say that there a lot of bigots and racists in the state. My father in law, who supported the law in Arizona and was angry that the governor vetoed it, it one of them.
Obviously I know less than one half of one percent of all of the people that live in the state. But I did live in the sticks and in a couple of the cities. It's alarming to me how many people are bigots.
And just because it's against your religion, doesn't mean your not a bigot if you think this law isn't discrimination.
Rural Ohio is pretty similar. Lots of half-ass bigots and half-ass racists. I call them half-ass because they don't truly hate, they are just stubborn and set in seriously backwards ways. They wouldn't do anything to hurt an individual in real life, but they consistently vote to hurt large groups of people... They are better than true bigots and racists, but they still cause way too much trouble.
So basically, they're not quite as shitty as the full-ons?
Well, Pence is in some hot water and says clarification is needed. I am curious what you all think about these situations:
1) Should a priest who believes that gay marriage be a sin be compelled to officiate a gay wedding, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
2) Should a church that does not recognize gay marraige be compelled to allow a gay marraige ceremony in its church, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
No to both. In neither case do commerce laws apply. If a business is open to the public it has to abide by the laws that govern public commerce.
Agree
See, this is part of what I think the law is there to protect churches, organizations, etc... from. It is a different story though if you are renting a home, operating a restaurant, etc.... The law is also there for many non LBGT reasons as well (hence the law in 20 states and on the federal books).
I think before declaring the governor and residents of Indiana bigots, or boycotting the state, both sides need to look at the law from more than one persective and find a way to change it so that there is a healthy balance of protection of religion and protection from discrimination. That is not how this country, government, corporations and the media works anymore unfortunately
As soeone born and raised in Indiana, I can honestly say that there a lot of bigots and racists in the state. My father in law, who supported the law in Arizona and was angry that the governor vetoed it, it one of them.
Obviously I know less than one half of one percent of all of the people that live in the state. But I did live in the sticks and in a couple of the cities. It's alarming to me how many people are bigots.
And just because it's against your religion, doesn't mean your not a bigot if you think this law isn't discrimination.
Rural Ohio is pretty similar. Lots of half-ass bigots and half-ass racists. I call them half-ass because they don't truly hate, they are just stubborn and set in seriously backwards ways. They wouldn't do anything to hurt an individual in real life, but they consistently vote to hurt large groups of people... They are better than true bigots and racists, but they still cause way too much trouble.
So basically, they're not quite as shitty as the full-ons?
Not quite. Face to face, they are good peeps for the most part...when you talk about broader philosophy and voting records...pretty shitty.
Comments
I need to go find my10C forum manual that came with initial membership and review policies and personal conduct expectations.
Seriously I can barely type as I laugh at this.
this fucker called god seems to wave his penis wherever and whenever he wants in all our faces and the people who disagree are going to hell - that's fucked.
insert waving penis :
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/seattle-mayor-prohibits-city-employees-traveling-indiana/story?id=29979438
Really, the whole premise is ridiculous. People can run their private business as they see fit, and if that includes refusing service to anyone for whatever religious or moral reason, so be it. I imagine the backlash/repercussions/lack of clientele would speak louder volumes.
I can only imagine the gay-owned businesses refusing to serve straight patrons. What purpose would it serve?
Now extend that to housing, employment, etc...I'll never understand how the fact that someone is different from another precluding renting to or hiring one who meets the requirements, is a perfect fit, responsible, qualified, and on...simply because they're gay?
Nope and nope.
All I have to do is say it's against my religion? Awesome. Where's my expired KKK membership card?
To clarify - I'm saying that if business owners employ these tactics - legal or not - common sense will prevail and the business will suffer for its choices.
Gonna go lick my wounds now
1) Should a priest who believes that gay marriage be a sin be compelled to officiate a gay wedding, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
2) Should a church that does not recognize gay marraige be compelled to allow a gay marraige ceremony in its church, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
I think before declaring the governor and residents of Indiana bigots, or boycotting the state, both sides need to look at the law from more than one persective and find a way to change it so that there is a healthy balance of protection of religion and protection from discrimination. That is not how this country, government, corporations and the media works anymore unfortunately
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/
They only do short tours anyway so why not skip those 30 states.
The boycotts wont last precisely because they are already achieving the desired effect.
From a CNN article:
"The law in Indiana, though, as well as the slew of other states it follows, came after an outcry from social conservative circles over incidents where business owners found themselves in hot water after refusing services to gay couples planning to get married.
In addition to those 20 states, legislators in nine other states have introduced similar types of "religious freedom" laws -- bills that either failed to go through in 2014 or are still up for consideration this year.
But Adam Talbot, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, stressed that those 20 laws are "dramatically different in their scope and effect."
"Calling them similar in this way risks being misleading. Indiana is the broadest and most dangerous law of its kind in the country," Talbot said.
Arkansas' legislature passed an Indiana-style law on Friday, which now heads to the state's governor for approval.
Religious liberty -- and using it to push back against same-sex marriage and other gay rights -- has become the rallying cry for the social conservative movement in the last year as these groups have watched one anti-gay marriage law after the next tumble in the courts.
And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.
One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage."
"The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that," Toobin said. The political calculation that states are going to have to make is, is the reward from the religious groups greater than the cost in lost business."
Have these "religious freedom restoration" laws already been used as legal defenses?
Yup. The Human Rights Campaign pointed CNN to several cases in which individuals have used these laws in court -- and not just in cases involving LGBT people and weddings.
A police officer in Oklahoma claimed a religious objection when he refused to police a mosque. A police officer in Salt Lake City cited his "religious liberty" when he refused to police a gay pride parade.
A photographer in New Mexico used religious freedom as a defense for not serving a lesbian couple in 2013."
I'll take the subsequent silence / write-offs (it is tax season) toward my earlier response to a couple of posts that took me for quite a loop for what it appears to be. Gotta say that quick judgment by you and BB, you two of all people, pretty unfair. And given my respect for you both, was hurtful.
Anyway, not much more I can say from here. Don't need to defend myself at all.
Obviously I know less than one half of one percent of all of the people that live in the state. But I did live in the sticks and in a couple of the cities. It's alarming to me how many people are bigots.
And just because it's against your religion, doesn't mean your not a bigot if you think this law isn't discrimination.