Why the backlash against Indiana and not other states with similar laws? Timing.

A copy of the language obtained by The Indianapolis Star was being presented to Gov. Mike Pence Wednesday morning. The measure would specify that the new religious freedom law cannot be used as a legal defense to discriminate against residents based on their sexual orientation.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...l-sets-limited-protections-for-lgbt/70766920/

Will the gay mafia accept this? Probably not.

 

Science is not saying that there is a specific gene for it. There are lots of unchangeable characteristics of plants and animals that don't get specifically spelled out by genes. Certain traits get established during gestation. A visuals example is that of the spots on black and white Holstein cows - the patterns are set during gestation, where genes define a propensity for the two colors to attract, but do not specify the outcome. Those patterns don't change.

You can find individuals who claim they changed their sexuality. Some may be real. There certainly is variety in human sexuality.

 

so... you can't prove it's genetic... but want to compare it to being black... which CAN be genetically proven.... interesting...

it's like saying "I was born sexually attracted to my siblings.... even though I can't really prove it.... just take my agenda driven word for it"

 

No, the truth is that Connecticut already has a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana does not - yet.

Under such a law, discrimination such as would be allowed under Indiana's so-called "religious freedom" law is not permitted.

Rightwing media entertainers likes to tell their devout fans there's no difference, and there would not be once Indiana passes legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

don't sell wedding cakes if your gonna discriminate based on the gender of the couple getting married.... simple

it's not the event, it's the gender of the couple.... if they had a problem with the event "weddings", they would not sell "wedding" cakes


.

 

would a hetero couple have been sold a wedding cake for a gay wedding?


it's only discrimination if the baker refused to provide a service to gays that he offered to heteros. If he sold cakes for gay wedding to two straight guys, then it's discrimination if he then refuses a cake to two gay guys for a gay wedding.


if the same gay couple tried to buy a wedding cake for a straight wedding.... I'm willing to bet he would have sold it to them....

 

If a gay person wants a birthday cake, he can get a birthday cake.
If a gay person wants a gay wedding cake, he will have to go elsewhere.
If a hetero person wants a gay wedding cake, he will have to go elsewhere.

They sell to gay people, they do not sell cakes for gay weddings.

Such a simple concept... I can't fathom why that's so far over your head.


.

 

LOL

So by that "logic", it's not discrimination to refuse to sell cakes for a black birthday if you won't sell a black birthday cake to white people either.

 

So if you won't sell interracial wedding cakes, that's not discrimination either..


And if you won't sell Jewish wedding cakes, that's not discrimination...


LOL

 

OH, so you invoke an "if" and tell me I'm word crafting? Again showing how weak your argumant is.

 

No.... so Fresh Air would say that means the bakery discriminates against straight people. Not the event.

 

I never said that.
Have you the slightest clue who you're talking to ?
Take that goofiness elsewhere.

 

So your twisted logic somehow only applies to homosexuals who want to get married.


But that's not discrimination.


LOL

 

No. ...

 

That's not word crafting at all. I used that to point out the impact of the fact that homosexuality is not a choice.

 

I suspect marriage between two heterosexuals of the same sex would be just as offensive to a Christian business owner. Just as we have seen Christian bakeries who had and were more than willing to sell to the homosexuals other baked goods. It was only the marriage that they objected to taking part in.

 

sure it is

 

That's not discrimination simply because discrimination is based on prejudice and has no clear logic. For conservative Christians there is a clear logic behind no-gay-service rules. God forbids them doing so, in the eyes of their God gays are abomination of his will. That's the reason they do not want to share anything with homosexuals and it is far from discrimination.

 

While an incident of discrimination may be based on some prejudice, it doesn't have to be.

It's a stretch to characterize that as logic. The plain fact is that Christians have to share this country and our laws with all sorts of people they don't like, homosexuals included.

 

Do Christians ask all their costumers if they are violating any of God's rules before they provide a service?

If not, then yes, there is probably a good case for discrimination to only target gay people.
So, I guess you'll come up with some mental gymnastics to rationalize why one and not the other?

 

I'm sorry, but creating a rationalization in your mind doesn't somehow mean it's not discrimination. Every bigot has, what they believe is, a logical reason for their bigotry.


There's nothing in the Bible forbidding Christians from serving gays.

 

what religion are you? just curious, so I know how to respond to you. Thanks...........stj

 

Do you know any other words apart from rationalization and bigot? I am not bigot yet I do not like the idea of gay marriages becoming legal in this country. Because I do not understand what is standing behind this idea. A child needs both parents (it is scientifically proven already) in order to understand social roles of man and woman.

 

That is special pleading, especially from a historical perspective that omits, Spartan policies public, especially in regard to the common Defense.