Indiana Religious Liberties law....

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

PJfanwillneverleave1

JM12271 said:

PJ_Soul said:

rr165892 said:

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.

insert waving penis :

eddiec

Seattle prohibits city workers from travelling to Indiana on city funds.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/seattle-mayor-prohibits-city-employees-traveling-indiana/story?id=29979438

Bentleyspop

Hopefully no more PJ shows in Indiana while this law is in effect

hedonist

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

insert waving penis :

That's what s/he said

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.

hedonist

Also, I don't really support boycotting the state - it punishes the folks who also oppose this. I'd rather support those who are actively against it.

Last-12-Exit

hedonist said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

insert waving penis :

That's what s/he said

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?

Last-12-Exit

That post was a response to your second sentence. Not the rest of your post hedo.

badbrains

Last-12-Exit said:

hedonist said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

insert waving penis :

That's what s/he said

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.

hedonist

Last-12-Exit said:

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

rr165892

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

rr165892

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

JM12271 said:

PJ_Soul said:

rr165892 said:

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.

insert waving penis :

She dosent have a penis. )

bootlegger10

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?

rgambs

bootlegger10 said:

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.

rr165892

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

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

bootlegger10

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

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

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rr165892 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Thanks, eh!

BS44325

Bentleyspop said:

Hopefully no more PJ shows in Indiana while this law is in effect

Here is a list of 30 other states PJ will have to boycott as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/

Bentleyspop

BS44325 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Hopefully no more PJ shows in Indiana while this law is in effect

Here is a list of 30 other states PJ will have to boycott as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/

Works for me
They only do short tours anyway so why not skip those 30 states.

rgambs

bootlegger10 said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.