You should have mastered pronouns by second grade. Guess that was when you were beamed up to the Bigot Ship to begin your indoctrination.
Yes, indeed. And there's the difference. Some people are capable of evolving. Others, apparently, are not.
The last comment on the Talking Points Memo post says It's on the books. Has Malloy pledged not to enforce it or actively worked to repeal it? It's the height of hypocrisy to grandstand on how terrible some state's law is when your own state's law is much worse. What's your point, that a law passed now has more awfulness than one already on the books? Apparently, not much has changed, since these rotten discrimination enabling laws still stand and are still being passed. If Malloy was really outraged, he could start at home. Is there enough hypocrisy in Connecticut to feed everyone for Thanksgiving? Yes, there is indeed. Connecticut's law reads: (a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state. The mindless idiots running Connecticut must be lashing out because of their own inadequacies that keep them from seeing the big stick in their own eye.
Knock it off with the colored text. It's nigh on unreadable on certain board skins. Consider this your friendly warning.
Connecticut. And the mayor of San Francisco. Big fuckin' whoop. Show me how much money Connecticut & San Francisco spends on official government travel to Indiana per year and let's see how significant this really is. I'd be more impressed if any of the states that border Indiana had done the same thing. As for the restaurant that allegedly has already begun "discriminating" against gays - I listened to the audio of that radio broadcast and it was painfully obvious the call was a fake. Likely a orchestrated ruse by homo-activists. Why wait for actual examples of businesses refusing service to gays, examples that may take weeks or months to discover, or may never come at all, when you can manufacture the story yourself, and guarantee the exact kind of headline you want, tailor made for the progressive blogosphere? The guy wouldn't give his name, the name of his restaurant or even what kind of food it served. He wouldn't say when he had supposedly refused service to gays, or even how he knew the people he refused service to were gay. And if he's hung a sign, where's the pictures of that sign? Surely those pics would be all over the net by now, right?
When was the last time you acquired new information about - well, anything at all - and it altered your POV?
It might have been more palatable to mainstream America if we could have just referred to cohabitating gays as "civil unions." Similar to the concept of a common law marriage. But nope, the gheys weren't satisfied unless they had "marriage." Make no mistake, the next battleground will be in America's churches, when homo-fascists will try to force clergy to officiate their "marriages" under threat of government sanction.
Why would I want my marriage devalued by the statement that it's okay for me, but not for my neighbor? No, it won't. Nobody wants to be married by a church that doesn't support the couple.
My opinion on this law is my own and non-binding on any other Christian. I think it is daft. But, I approach it from a different direction. If you own a bakery or a florist that chooses to participate in the wedding and funeral markets, do so freely and without worry because you should use the opportunity to fulfill your part of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). If the customer doesn't like it, they are free to choose another provider.
Of course he did. Only a low grade moron like yourself could manage to not acquire new information over the course of nearly 20 years.
(My emphasis above) Somewhere in these 11 pages, someone actually posting/arguing in good faith has linked to an article noting the problematic distinctions between this Indiana law and some of the less reactionary older statutes in other states. Most noteworthy, in my opinion, is this idea that the State need not be a party to a proceeding in order for this legislation to apply now in Indiana. I think it comes down to whether we believe civil rights legislation is appropriate in our society, in the form of anti-discrimination laws. I understand, even though I disagree vehemently with, the position that the State should stay the fuck out of our lives in this respect, and the free market can take care of it all. I have great difficulty with the idea that the LGBTQ community in its various forms should not be included in existing and valid anti-discrimination laws and principles.
This article details some of the differences between the Indiana statute and others. But another major distinction is that there's a difference between (a) having passed a pro-discrimination law in the 1990s and simply not having repealed it, while progressing in every other way since then, and (b) adding a pro-discrimination stance to your books and actively reveling in prejudice today.
Nice piece from that Liberal homo-fascist rag, The National Spectator, explaining how Indiana's RFRA differs greatly from the Illinois RFRA that Obama voted for almost 20 years ago. Yeah, it's in the blog section, and, yeah, it's by a guy who used to be a commie, but was reborn a Conservative after 9-11; Aaron Goldstein. The RFRA Obama Voted for in Illinois is Different From The One Passed in Indiana
No, that's just more hypocrisy because if the law needed repealing in these other states, then they should have done so. They didn't lift a finger. What, are these laws good enough for Connecticut but too good for Indiana? Why is it wrong for people in Indiana to have the same First Amendment protections that the people in Connecticut already enjoy? A law on the books is a law on the books, and it can be cited by anyone seeking relief or redress. A person charged in Connecticut can cite their law just as much as a person in Indiana can cite this new one. Laws don't go stale, which is why so many rely on the First Amendment even though it was passed over two centuries ago.
He is wrong. All the state RFRA acts protect businesses - because of the Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Bullshit! Fox News Anchor Debunks Fox’s Own Propaganda About Indiana Religious Freedom Law You can find the video, HERE.
As I said, the Supreme Court extended all those religious protections to include corporations in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, so their point is moot. ALL the state RFRA acts apply to corporations now. The high court has spoken. Since the High Court had spoken, Indiana went and included the update from on high in the text of their version, but the same applies to all the other states as well, including Connecticut, Arizona, and Illinois. Think of it as a pleasant consequence of Obamacare.
Can you please cite the paragraphs of the majority reasons in Hobby Lobby that say what you say they say?
The hobby lobby case was about providing birth control to employees. It is a highly different situation from not serving customers who happen to practice homosexuality. You are still a gigantic fucking dolt with no clue what they are talking about in the real world.
In even agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court decided that Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, had standing to argue that its religious rights were being violated. Ergo, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations can have religious rights, just like individuals or churches. They wrote extensively about that issue. Boom. done.
