Indiana-Is a great place to be a bigot....

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
While you seem quick to condemn this law I'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on coming from California. Considering there is a ballot initiative in your state to shoot homosexuals on the spot does seem much worse. I am not a big fan of the gay rights movement, but I certainly believe they have the right to live.

Any kind of attack on gays and lesbians is ok in your book, as long as there is some kind of legislation permitting it.

This right wing kook in california is no smarter than mike pence or the idiots in the indiana legislature.

We are suppose to be a country of equality, that is, unless the republicans can find ways to keep everyone segregated.

This country tried to keep blacks out of society, and how well did that work out for the country. Ya, you good old boys didnt have to live with people superballs would call Nwords, but now you pay for it in taxes for holding them back for decades.

Discrimination and the elimination of lawsuits for discriminating is exactly what the Indiana bill is designed to do. If a christian business discriminates against anyone, whether gay or lesbia, muslim or jew, they cannot be sued for it.

thats all this bill is designed to do. In other words, they opened the door for discrimination because there is no penalty for it.

Mike Pence has already admitted publicly that there hasnt been one single case of religious interference in the state, and if thats the case, why the need for a law in the first place?

We get it, republicans hate gays and lesbians.

That is pretty clear.

TOS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Again, your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. Where did I say the laws were different?

My examples are just that. Examples of where freedom of religion is necessary. Nobody should be compelled by government to violate their personal religious beliefs. Thats all this is about, and thankfully Governor Pence has the backbone to stand up for that premise. Even if it costs some money in legal battles as freedom isn't free.
I'm still not getting it, maybe you can explain it to me.
How does making a cake that will be eaten by a newly married gay couple violate the baker's personal religious beliefs? Is cake really such a vital part of a marriage ceremony? I could understand a company that provides people marriage officiants not wanting to perform marriages based on religion. But cake? I mean come on, really? Where does this vague association with your personal religious beliefs end?
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
I'm still not getting it, maybe you can explain it to me.
How does making a cake that will be eaten by a newly married gay couple violate the baker's personal religious beliefs? Is cake really such a vital part of a marriage ceremony? I could understand a company that provides people marriage officiants not wanting to perform marriages based on religion. But cake? I mean come on, really? Where does this vague association with your personal religious beliefs end?

thats the point of the hypocrisy.

They would like to EXTEND their religious beliefs beyond normalcy.

First its cakes, then its food, then its pictures, then its tow truck assistance "sorry maam, i cant tow your lesbian mobile because I am a christian"...

People like Brett are the kind of bigots that approve such tactics as reasonable.

TOS.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Isn't Indiana's law a confirmation of the Fed law of 1993 ?
If it is so then the gay marriage cake baking issue is moot .
The 1993 law was aimed at the American Indian religious use of a controlled substance .
The liberal movement has twisted Indiana's law into a totally different subject .
Thus making anyone who cries of discrimination a complete idiot .
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Isn't Indiana's law a confirmation of the Fed law of 1993 ?
If it is so then the gay marriage cake baking issue is moot .
The 1993 law was aimed at the American Indian religious use of a controlled substance .
The liberal movement has twisted Indiana's law into a totally different subject .
Thus making anyone who cries of discrimination a complete idiot .
That's one way of looking at it.
Another way is that the law serves no purpose other than to pander to a religious base that is upset about having their gay marriage ban overturned.
Thus making anyone who defends it a complete idiot.
 

realbrown1

Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
thats the point of the hypocrisy.

They would like to EXTEND their religious beliefs beyond normalcy.

First its cakes, then its food, then its pictures, then its tow truck assistance "sorry maam, i cant tow your lesbian mobile because I am a christian"...

People like Brett are the kind of bigots that approve such tactics as reasonable.

TOS.
Last time I read the constitution, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, was right up there in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Couldn't find freedom of sexual preference anywhere.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Is "OK?" some type of internet code? It does not seem like a legitimate question so it has to be something else.
Ok is code for okay. As in I don't disagree.
The question mark implies that I have no clue what that has to do with the conversation we were having. Unless you are suggesting that the government enacting this law in some way negates liberty.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Ok is code for okay. As in I don't disagree.
The question mark implies that I have no clue what that has to do with the conversation we were having. Unless you are suggesting that the government enacting this law in some way negates liberty.


The summary or our very odd interaction so far.


You made a post posing the question of why one would need a state law when there is the US Constitution, particularly citing the bill of rights leading me to the assumption that you understand the ninth and tenth amendments. Seems a little contradictory to me. After you then posed the question do laws limit freedom. I in turn quoted a well know economist both answering your question and mocking your implication of the study of economics. Your statement implying that an economist speaking of liberty only means liberty in the economic sense when most people view the study of economics as that of human interaction was just entertaining to me is all.

You then replied with an "OK?" Seems odd so I had just wondered if there was an actual meaning for that or if your fingers just hit some random keys on the keyboard is all. Your reply makes it seem that your fingers just hit some random keys.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
The summary or our very odd interaction so far.


You made a post posing the question of why one would need a state law when there is the US Constitution, particularly citing the bill of rights leading me to the assumption that you understand the ninth and tenth amendments. Seems a little contradictory to me. After you then posed the question do laws limit freedom. I in turn quoted a well know economist both answering your question and mocking your implication of the study of economics. Your statement implying that an economist speaking of liberty only means liberty in the economic sense when most people view the study of economics as that of human interaction was just entertaining to me is all.

You then replied with an "OK?" Seems odd so I had just wondered if there was an actual meaning for that or if your fingers just hit some random keys on the keyboard is all. Your reply makes it seem that your fingers just hit some random keys.
Sounds like you and I were having two vastly different conversations.
 
Top