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

As stupid as I think religion, and as stupid as I think opposition to equal rights is, I do believe people have more of a right to practice their religion than does someone have a right to a wedding cake. Freedom of religion shall not be abridged. I have yet to see anywhere in the Bill or Rights or the Constitution where is specifically states a patronize has a right to force a business to accommodate them by the barrel of the State's gun and violence.

At least people will know which businesses not to patronize now.

 

Never.

Overreactive dramatics aside.... are you claiming there is no business that supports homosexuals ?

Hell, almost all Christians businesses serve homosexuals... and Christians are not a group whose mind is easy to change.

I think you're being a tad... "sky is falling", here.

 

Ahhhhhh. You fear the slippery slope. How about if people want to marry their dogs if gay marriage becomes federal law?

 

Lol, it happens here at PF all the time.

Reply to a post with "you gays" and they are quick to say "I'm not gay!"



I once saw a sign saying: "I'm definitely not gay, but... what they said"

 

despite the karma people think exists.... As I see niche businesses carve out success with limited demographics.... (like Brothas Fashions), the reason gays are so mad are when businesses like Chick-fil-a not only survive the gay-genda attack, but actually PROSPER, they start relying on govt mandates.

The backlash you will eventually see is that of gays being forced back into the closet each and every time in history they started popping out.

- - - Updated - - -

"if you want to have sex with your best friend, go for it...."


"I'M NOT GAY"



wow, pretty defensive about something you preach isn't bad....

 

There, see, it's happening already.

If you support gays you must BE gay

What is WRONG with you people. I don't like having sex with 300lb women. Does that mean I have to hate 300lb women and anyone who will have sex with one? Fat girls need loving too, what's wrong with that?

 

If American businesses and the American public cannot enjoy the unfettered expression of their approbation or disapprobation through capitalism, their liberty has been suppressed.

Each state is free to pass discriminatory laws that can survive constitutional scrutiny, and Americans are free to express their sentiments concerning such laws by supporting or refusing to support that state in the marketplace.

If the latter, that state can then choose for itself, with input from its businesses and citizenry, whether it prefers to maintain its controversial laws or benefit financially by appealing to the consumer.


Eminently American.



.

 

This is simply an effort to ignore the civil rights progress the US has made over the last decades.

Once we became aware that same sex orientation is not a choice it became necessary for us to end that discrimination as an issue of rights that derive from our constitution.

States don't have a right to ignore that part of our constitution any more than they have a right to ignore the rest of it.

 

Well, that is certainly a ridiculous pull from Javis' words.

He never said that.... he just pointed out the guy who made sure not to let himself be confused with the rest of the gays.

I don't know why you gays don't see the humor in that.

 

I can think of no basis for arguing that states can make up their own interpretations of what religous freedom, or any other freedom means.

 

But you think the feds can?

 

I've read the Bible and there is nothing about Blacks or any other race of people. With that being said it DOES specifically mention homosexuality.

 

So you're in favor of the Federal Government definition?

This is the Federal Governments definition of religious freedom.

 

I was referring to the constitution.

And, that's not going to change to allow Christians to discriminate against LGBT people.

The idea that Christianity can be used as an excuse for bigotry is really disgusting - besides being counter to our constitution. The RCC is calling for an end to that, and several denominations of Christianity have gone farther by marrying same sex couples. Surely they are embarrassed.

 

Your argument wasn't successfully used in justifying racial discrimination.

There is no more reason for it to be successful in justifying gender discrimination.

 

Freedom of one person compromised in favor of another? That's not the American way, and if you think it is you are sadly confused.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happyness.

Not imposing your morality on someone else.

 

It refers to same sex behavior that can be assumed to be oriented to behavior of heterosexuals.

The story of Lott clearly does not refer to same sex orientation, for example.

There wasn't an understanding of innate same sex orientation at the time the Bible was written.

 

Indiana's law differs substantially from the U.S. RFRA and other state RFRAs.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

The Indiana law also differs in that the asserted belief doesn't have to be central to, nor compelled by the faith to which the person subscribes; they could pretty much make up any objection they want and then claim it's a violation based on the sincerity of their belief alone.

The Indiana law is overly broad, whereas earlier laws have certain safeguards that narrow the scope.

Telling as well that the governor couldn't answer the simple 'yes or no' question of whether he opposes discrimination against gay people.

This is just part of the next generation of laws that are cleverly worded to target the rights of gay people without going after them explicitly.

 

It's a key point that this issue is not limited to the gay community.

It's an important issue for America as a whole, not just those who are the targets of the discrimination.

 

That's the way it has worked or 239 years.

 

Define 'worked'.

 

To you maybe. As I said there is nothing in the Bible about the race of anyone, nor the gender of anyone as being wrong or a sin. However, it specifically mentions Homosexuality as such on several occasions. To call Religious freedom laws....in accordance with the Constitution an attempt to add blanket or alleged discrimination towards anyone they choose is truly ludicrous.

 

Gay activists are intolerant of core American Chritian values such as traditional marriage and family. In fact, they don't even support the hetersexual values that the Native Amerindians had thousands of years before Columbus.

Can you give evidence of historical gay/lesbo Native American tribes? And since you can't find any, why haven't I seen any gay troublemakers attack Indian nation governments and demand that their traditions be abolished?

 

Well... actually if you look at slavery, segregation, Japanese internment, women not being allowed to vote until the early 20th century, and the way we treat the Native Americans, I think it can be argued that we were founded upon principles of bigotry. But to get back on point I do agree with you that support for gays is increasingly bipartisan and I feel for the first time in our history we are coming close to the ideal of Freedom that our country was founded upon.

 

*-

Romans 1:26-28 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Can I help explain something about this that you don't understand?