which is why I vote for gridlock, neither party can be trusted to run anything. I don't want either side totally "in charge" as I have said a thousand times, when Government "gets things done" we get shit like Obamacare and The Patriot Act. I don't want government "getting shit done" the less they do, the less they can fuck up.
I hate race baiting and by and large I don't get too excited about LGBT issues, but even I have to say this new law I Indiana sets a VERY bad precedence and opens the door to some very bad behavior being legitimized all in the name of "religious freedom"
Don't these bible thumping, fag hating, morons realize that they are starting to sound just as bad as the Islamic supporters of Sharia law that they hate so much?
As I said, I don't normally get too excited about LGBT issues as they don't impact my life, but what's next? Today you can discriminate against gays, tomorrow Mormons, and the next day anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do.
Fuck, I really may vote Dimocratic (sic) in 2016 after all.
Seldom does one see, in themselves, what they hate in others. That applies, in spades, for those whom are self-righteous. 
....those plans have been dashed forever. Which is actually a good thing IMHO.
That's good enough for some, I doubt every Governor has the ambition to become President
What the law does is it says it religious freedom is to be impaired the state must show a compelling interest and that it is tailored to the exact problem.
This is the standard for all consititutional issues. If there is a law that impinges on speech, for it to be valid it must meet these standards. There are too many other areas to list where the same thing applies.
Getting to Moslems and Indians.
There is a law under attack that limits the length of facial hair on Moslem prisoners. The state is being forced to show that it must show a compelling intetest and this law is tailored to that interest.
Many times a state wants to impose a law that will impact Native Americans in the exercise of their religions. The same standard must be met.
The ACLU has argued for this standard when laws impose on an individual's exercise of his religion, except for time.
President Obama urged this very same law when he was in the State Leg. Bill Clinton signed this exact law on the federal level
As Illinois State Senator, BHO voted "yes" for the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
Chuck Schumer introduces the Federal law that Clinton signed. Jus' asking?
...Gen Con, one of the largest gaming conventions (not that kind, GaG) has said it will move their convention from Indianapolis in reaction to the new law. Last year, 56,000 people attended Gen Con at the Indiana Convention Center with an economic impact of $50 million. It will take quite a few thumper conventions to replace that loss of business.
This new law brouhaha may blow over in a few weeks or it may have lasting effects which cause Indiana lawmakers to change their minds.
It will be interesting to see how much time will be devoted to blasting this new law this coming weekend at the final four, as there have already been calls to strip Indy from hosting the games. That won't happen of course, but I hope they are getting the message loud and clear that most of the country, even "righties" like me, are 100% against this.
...the WOMEN's Final Four is scheduled to be held in Indianapolis. It wouldn't surprise me if that will be moved if the law is still in effect then.
The law will be struck down as unconstitutional. It is just plain wrong.
...in South Carolina, Maurice Bessinger owned several Piggie Park Barbecue restaurants. He believed that slavery was God's will and that God wanted only whites to eat in his barbecue joints (blacks could buy take out though). He fought it all the way to the S.Ct. and lost.
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
Much more good has been done in the name of religion, Rev. Martin Luther King is a prime example. But of course you choose some isolated incident from a time when racism was rampant in So Carolina and much of the deep south.
mostly an unnecessary one as a similar federal law already exists.
The overreaction to this has been the biggest story. Where was this reaction and outrage when 20 other states and the former President of the U.S. signed similar laws into existence?
Indiana -- and the nation in general -- has much bigger fish to fry then worrying about a law drummed up to cover the asses of people who push their religion a little too much
and that is a huge door to open.
As I said, I don't pay much attention to LGBT issues, as by and large they don't effect me, and usually I side on NOT giving them "special" rights. This law is quite different as if a dentist can now claim that taking on a gay patient is against his religion, who and what is next on the hit list?
I know slippery slope is an overused expression, but it certainly applies here. I don't want gays to be treated any better than the rest of us, but openly discriminating against them is as wrong as refusing any of us service for being either a hooker or a john. That might offends someone's religious sensibilities as well, do you REALLY want to open that door?
and every one of them has indicated that discriminatory acts -- like the possible scenario about the dentist that you mentioned -- would never be protected by this law. Of course, different lawyers have different opinions. And I am the furthest thing from a lawyer, lol.
catering business to cater his rally ... because the government says they have to.
Or the Jewish baker has to put a swaztika on a cake for some dude ... because the government says he has to.
This is really about LGBT issues just like the gay marriage hysteria. Whatever happened to common sense?
The law allows for a process by which a religious person (or now group/institution in Indiana) can folow when the government over steps their boundary, interfering with the religious practice without a damn good reason. Same as Obama voted for in Illinois. Same as in dozens of other states. The big differences that are most objectionable are Indiana now goes beyond individuals (as SCOTUS did with Hobby Lobby) and also Indiana has no specific protective class for LGBT.
Someone might try to use this law to not bake a cake or serve a pizza but EVERY TIME that has been tried in other states they have lost. These laws are meant as a shield against the government.
in purely federal cases. State laws could not be interfered with in such matters, said the SCOTUS.
If a business wants to turn down potential profits, I say let them.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your-questions-on-indianas-religious-freedom-bill-answered/
Just read it. Learn about the law. It has ZERO to do with homosexuality
...Society is? They're dumbass "originalists" like Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.
Being a gay Federalist is like being a black person in the KKK. See also "Log Cabin Republicans."
What a dishonest post ... this sign is from the 1960's in Great Britain! (see below).
From an article in the Guardian:
When my mum first came to Britain from Jamaica in the 60s, overt racism was just a normal part of her day-to-day experience.
She never tires of telling me about the famous "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs" signs that landlords put up on properties
man's best friend in with blacks and such .
and have been for a very long time .
and yes they have been the American version of the Taliban, and yes they have been for a very long time.
Just like most racists, bigots, bullies, and other cowards, the more of them you put in the same room, the braver and more abusive they become. I have no doubt that if they were ever to become the majority in this country, and were allowed to run amok completely unchecked they would come up with a Christian version of Sharia Law and would completely rewrite our constitution, substituting a religious tome in it's place.
Just like most racists, bigots, bullies, and other cowards, the more of them you put in the same room, the braver and more abusive they become. I have no doubt that if they were ever to become the majority in this country, and were allowed to run amok completely unchecked they would come up with a Christian version of Sharia Law and would completely rewrite our constitution, substituting a religious tome in it's place.
except for racist part considering he , holder and the First Lady are as big of a racist as anybody named bubba from Mississippi.
which is why I vote for gridlock, neither party can be trusted to run anything. I don't want either side totally "in charge" as I have said a thousand times, when Government "gets things done" we get shit like Obamacare and The Patriot Act. I don't want government "getting shit done" the less they do, the less they can fuck up.
systematic loss of our 4th Amendment(and others), income disparity akin to the feudal ages. All are problems neither Red nor Blue team wish to tackle. The oldest play in the book is to distract from the real problems and turn the citizens against each other while the elite loot the entire nation.
It is time to start filling all those corporate owned prisons with treasonous politicians rather than benign citizens who prefer smoking a strain of hops over tobacco or drinking alcohol.
Would you say that the 1st amendment set a very bad precedent? You must (at least the part that guarantees religious freedom). All this Indiana law did was re-enforce this. I defy you to find one way this opens any kind of door to any kind of discrimination.
Those 2 fag activists walked into that bakery BECAUSE They knew the owner was Christian. They were picking a fight. And they were NOT DENIED SERVICE. They were denied a cake for their gay wedding. They were free to purchase anything else. The Dim party is fundraising off angry fags who get off on the idea of being victims. It makes them feel good to get out their check books and write one to the Dim party.
It is maddening that people still fall for their constant bullshit.
Don't these bible thumping, fag hating, morons realize that they are starting to sound just as bad as the Islamic supporters of Sharia law that they hate so much?
As I said, I don't normally get too excited about LGBT issues as they don't impact my life, but what's next? Today you can discriminate against gays, tomorrow Mormons, and the next day anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do.
Fuck, I really may vote Dimocratic (sic) in 2016 after all.
and if that means getting married, then so be it.
Marriage is nothing but a legal contract between two people to merge their lives, assets and affairs, if "Fags" want to merge their lives together, that's their fucking business, and no bible thumper should have the right to refuse them a cake to commemorate the occasion, any more than some Muslim should have the right to refuse services of any kind to a Christian.
If you can deny a fag a wedding cake, then where do you draw the line. How about denying all ragheads Christmas trees? Or all atheists for that matter? There is no fucking end to it, and that's where the outrage is coming from and why even a "righty" like me is opposed to it.
I don't think that they denied making them a wedding cake, they wouldn't inscribe it in the way the couple wanted to do to their religious beliefs.
Isn't that a free speech issue? Would a Jew get in trouble if he refused to inscribe a cake that said heil hitler? What's the difference?
This clash of freedoms is much bigger then gay rights. Its just an easy way for those that wish to to attack personal rights.
Doesn't that Muslim butcher get to refuse to slaughter a pig? Its the same principal. Forcing someone to take an action that is against their personal believes is an assault on freedom.
I'm certain they could have found another baker to inscribe their wedding cake. Just like you/I get rejected from seeing a provider, we always find another.
As Chuck Barry said, "live like you want to live". It should apply to everyone equally. Gay rights shouldn't supersede honest religious beliefs.
Marriage is nothing but a legal contract between two people to merge their lives, assets and affairs, if "Fags" want to merge their lives together, that's their fucking business, and no bible thumper should have the right to refuse them a cake to commemorate the occasion, any more than some Muslim should have the right to refuse services of any kind to a Christian.
If you can deny a fag a wedding cake, then where do you draw the line. How about denying all ragheads Christmas trees? Or all atheists for that matter? There is no fucking end to it, and that's where the outrage is coming from and why even a "righty" like me is opposed to it.
A Christian couple comes into his store a wants him to make their wedding cake. On it, they want inscribed, "One man and one woman: the only real marriage" and then sign his name. Also, they want to pay him extra to personally cut and serve the cake at their wedding. The baker politely declines.
Now, what should his punishment be for his act of discrimination? Because surely this hatred and intolerance cannot be allowed. Freedom, schmeedom! I personally don't think it is the business of anyone, especially the government, to punish him for whatever it is he believes. If one doesn't have the freedom to believe whatever he wants, and act on it within the confines of the laws, he has no freedom at all.
The 1st amendment, and religious freedom is about the freedom to worship God in the manner that an individual wishes, and participate in the religious practices s/he wishes to participate in. Using your example regarding selling a wedding cake to a gay couple, that couple is not infringing upon how the store owner practices his or her religion. No way is the owner being required to participate in the gay life-style, nor is the gay couple infringing on the owners way and means of worshiping God. And, yes the business owner is with hold services that are not being withheld from others, on religious grounds.
Doesn't personally know a baker they can hire?