Connecticut Becomes First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

This law only allows business owners to argue in court (not to win, necessarily) that providing certain services may violate their deeply held religious views.
That's it! Period! I would think the Constitution itself would make this law redundant but it's incredible so many on the left are wetting themselves in consternation over it all.

It's also incredible that big corporations like Apple, who do business regularly with nations that don't recognize gay marriage, are all anxious to jump on the outrage train and attempt to flog Indiana for simply guaranteeing religious freedoms. This latest public tantrum is shameful.

 

My concern is that it gives preferential treatment to religious persons. I want equal protection.

 

Not sure he could compete anyway. Since this is something both Clinton and Obama supported, timing is everything and if a lying politician (moving lips) can't discern these things, they will fail.

 

Liberals are advocating forced servitude!

All three broadcast news networks had this on their morning shows and their evening news broadcasts (ABC, NBC, CBS). All were heavily against the Freedom of Religion and Pro-Forced Servitude.

The Mainstream Media is the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, they ignore the hell out of Hillary Clinton's email scandal, illegality, and lack of ethics.

 

So, you think protecting their religious liberties would be a bad thing?

 

bigotry under the feigned guise of "religious liberty", is a disgrace.

 

It's the opinion of leftwingers that it's bigotry when in fact there is nothing whatsoever feigned about it being an issue of religious liberty. Increasingly atheistic leftwingers aside, it is a fact that religious freedom is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and therefore this law is perfectly valid. As an athiest myself I applaud the concept of religious freedom. It's too bad that in order just to make a political score so very many of our leftwingers no longer value religious freedom at all; unless of course that religion is Sharia law enforced Islam.

 

using so-called religious faith to justify denying service to a homosexual, or a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Jew, is disgusting.

 

This event proves Liberals to be the Fascists they really are.

They are attempting to force people into servitude against their religious beliefs.

That's some scary crap going on in their warped little minds.

 

They aren't using it to justify anything, no more than all the other states with the equivalent law on their books -- some of whom are controlled by Dem governors who are being political hypocrites at the moment by declaring a boycott. Clean up one's own ideological house FIRST.

 

Yet bigotry against religion is perfectly acceptable.

 

The Connecticut law doesn't compare to the Indiana law in terms of restrictions to serving gays;http://courantblogs.com/colin-mcenroe/so-does-connecticut-have-a-rfra-like-indianas/

 

Says agent huffpo.

You amuse me bridge underdweller.

 

Do you have a more credible link than this guys blog? I mean he does source an "actual lawyer" and interpret that for us... but I am impressed w neither.

 

no, religious people should not be denied service by non-religious business owners.

- - - Updated - - -

sorry, but these laws have been used to deny service to Muslims and Gays.

 

Here's the folly of it all...so called and self-proclaimed religious people that hide behind the pages of the bible to act out their prejudices are not spiritual at all. They merely attempt to fill a void by doing things by rote as it is dictated to them by outdated concepts and archaic beliefs. They are cold and non-empathetic individuals that have no idea of what it really entails to be a human being. Feh!

 

I would then tell you, if your interest is to debunk the link I presented, find one of your own that discredits mine then. Because it did post up the actual Connecticut law. And that law doesn't come close to the Gestapo law of Indiana's.

- - - Updated - - -

That was brilliantly worded and totally spot on. Thanks!

 

Ok... your blogger opens with the answer yes and no, then admits his bias, then goes on to say there is a different law that protects against discrimination which makes this complimentary and therefore different in intent. You all accept on its face a fear of some is a specific intent. It describes the language in the CT law as archaic, those many 12 years ago, and so on and so on. It is the legal opinion of a layman built on false narrative with interpretive intent... and ignores that in 13 or so other states with similar laws not a single case of discrimination has occurred.

Now, have you got a credible link or not?

 

The folly of it all is that this law was written to protect not attack, and if the verbiage was to protect atheists from imposing and presumptuous religious folks you never would have said a word against it.

 

The law protects people from forced servitude.... and Liberals cannot stand that!

 

You are stalling. The actual law in that link is there. You just do not have the interest in looking, and would rather strengthen your own argument by using the bloggers opinion to dodge engaging me on the difference in the two laws. I get it.

 

Actually no they haven't.

 

Sorry, in this case it does not. They are in violation of the Constitution and one's civil rights; http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Civil+Rights And that is why Pence is now back peddling. He calls it a bad week for him and Indiana. I call it getting caught with his pants down violating the citizens of Indiana's civil rights.

 

You are forcing servitude on people. It's sick and disgusting.

Many gays don't like it either. The statement I keep hearing is that they don't want people opposed to their marriage serving them. Especially when they can give the business to many other vendors that welcome them as customers. What you Liberals are pushing is warped as (*)(*)(*)(*). Only a sick mind would push this on a populace.

Let those that have religious objections live their own lives. Let people that disagree with each other do business elsewhere.

I swear Liberals are just afraid of the free market. It's just an Authoritarian Control Freakshow coming out of their minds.

 

Sadly, it isn't. If I refuse to serve someone because he is a Christian, I have broken the law, is that not correct?

I'm not a libertarian anymore, I used to believe that you shouldn't have to serve anyone you don't want to serve, but then I realized bigots could buy up real estate all over the place and effectively keep entire groups of people they don't like out of an entire city in a worst case scenario. If we are really going to allow this in Indiana, it should also be legal to not serve Christians because you find them morally reprehensible, but of course that isn't the case. It's just sad that gay people have to struggle for equality because of a 2,000 year old fairy tale, because of the stupidity of those who shun science but believe in talking snakes.

I fix computers for a living. I'm seriously considering the notion of refusing to serve Christians until SSM is legal in all 50 states and these pro-bigotry bills are no longer in existance. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and my religion says I'm not supposed to serve Christians. I'm the only guy in town with my level of expertise who fixes computers for as dirt cheap as I do.

Let's see how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot.