FIX THIS NOW

[timpage]

Indiana GOP in a shitstorm.

Only the fucking republicans would pass a law allowing discriminatory behavior against gays and try to justify it in the name of Christian charity....oh, and I see Pence is now saying it's Obama's fault.

Shameful behavior.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...-now/70698802/

[Whirlaway]

I think this country needs to find a way to let people who have a legitimate conscientious religious objection to participating in these kinds of things to be exempted.

The Indiana law may not be perfect, but something needs to be done to protect a very small minority who don't want to be forced into submission against their religious beliefs.

As I understand it, this law wouldn't shield a person from providing normal services to customers, but would give some protection against being forced to do something against their will.

For example a pizza guy couldn't refuse to sell his pizzas to a gay couple that walked into his place of business for a slice. And the owner would be shielded from prosecution if that gay couple wanted the pizza guy to cater a gay wedding. And by "catering" it would mean the pizza proprietor had to be on premise, create special "gay" themed pizzas, etc.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I think this country needs to find a way to let people who have a legitimate conscientious religious objection to participating in these kinds of things to be exempted.

The Indiana law may not be perfect, but something needs to be done to protect a very small minority who don't want to be forced into submission against their religious beliefs.

As I understand it, this law wouldn't shield a person from providing normal services to customers, but would give some protection against being forced to do something against their will.

For example a pizza guy couldn't refuse to sell his pizzas to a gay couple that walked into his place of business for a slice. And the owner would be shielded from prosecution if that gay couple wanted the pizza guy to cater a gay wedding. And by "catering" it would mean the pizza proprietor had to be on premise, create special "gay" themed pizzas, etc.

Sure, let's create a fantasy scenario that would almost certainly never occur, in order to justify discrimination against gays in the name of religious freedom. Do you not see that the fact that you are having to reach so far to justify this means that it's wrong?

Let's talk about what is really going on here. The legislation is utterly unnecessary and was thought up and passed for one reason....Red meat for the GOP religious base. Something to rile them up, get them out, and make sure they vote for Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, etc, who will protect them from the gay hordes beating down their doors with sodomy in mind. The entire thing is absurd and the GOP in Indiana is getting an earful about it from business leaders and folks from other states.

[Whirlaway]

It is not a "fantasy" scenario.

It the kind of situation that the Indiana law is intended for.

So you are agreeing that in principle, this pizza shop owner should get protection under this "fantasy" scenario for his religious convictions?

[filbone]

Originally Posted by timpage

Indiana GOP in a shitstorm.

Only the fucking republicans would pass a law allowing discriminatory behavior against gays and try to justify it in the name of Christian charity....oh, and I see Pence is now saying it's Obama's fault.

Shameful behavior.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...-now/70698802/

You sure are selective in your outrage.

Some quotes from this Rich Lowry article. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ana-rich-lowry

Nineteen other states have similar protections, and they are all modeled on a federal version of the law that passed Congress with near unanimity in 1993...If these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts were the enablers of discrimination they are portrayed as, much of the country would already have sunk into a dystopian pit of hatred.

The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate — Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people — say, a baker or a florist — using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad. Why? It’s a large, diverse country, with many people of differing faiths and different points of view. More specifically, the country has an enormous wedding industry not known for its hostility to gays.

The burgeoning institution of gay marriage will surely survive the occasional florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding for religious reasons.

As a practical matter, such a dissenting florist doesn’t make a difference; the affected couple might be offended but can take its business elsewhere. But for the Left, it’s the principle of the thing. For all its talk of diversity, it demands unanimity on this question — individual conscience be damned. So it isn’t bothered when religious wedding vendors are sued or harassed under anti-discrimination laws for their nonparticipation in ceremonies they morally oppose.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by filbone

You sure are selective in your outrage.

Some quotes from this Rich Lowry article. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ana-rich-lowry

Nineteen other states have similar protections, and they are all modeled on a federal version of the law that passed Congress with near unanimity in 1993...If these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts were the enablers of discrimination they are portrayed as, much of the country would already have sunk into a dystopian pit of hatred.

The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate — Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people — say, a baker or a florist — using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad. Why? It’s a large, diverse country, with many people of differing faiths and different points of view. More specifically, the country has an enormous wedding industry not known for its hostility to gays.

The burgeoning institution of gay marriage will surely survive the occasional florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding for religious reasons.

As a practical matter, such a dissenting florist doesn’t make a difference; the affected couple might be offended but can take its business elsewhere. But for the Left, it’s the principle of the thing. For all its talk of diversity, it demands unanimity on this question — individual conscience be damned. So it isn’t bothered when religious wedding vendors are sued or harassed under anti-discrimination laws for their nonparticipation in ceremonies they morally oppose.

Right. Only in the right-wing-whacko world does condemnation of legislation that enables bigots to discriminate without legal consequence (that part that Lowry refers to as making this legislation "arguably more robust" than the federal version...it doesn't provide a legal remedy when a non-governmental entity discriminates...in fact, it insulates them from liability as I understand it.) become an attack on freedom of religion. Complete horseshit.

I watched Mike Pence tap-dance, stumble around, and act like a fool this morning when confronted with the direct question regarding whether or not it should be legal to discriminate against gays.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephanop...r-no-question/

His ridiculous performance is further proof that this legislation is about making the RWW's happy....nothing else. Pence refuses to state the obvious...that it ought to be against the law to discriminate against anybody based on sexual orientation.....because he's worried that the RWW's will doubt his conservative bona fides if he does. Sad.

You and yours have stepped into a big pile of steaming shit on this one. But, you keep on defending it by coming up with bizarre scenarios involving pizza, cakes, bakers and weddings.

I'll ask the same question I did in the other string which none of you answered.

Should businesses run by bigots be allowed to refuse service to African Americans? Jews? Women? So long as the justify it by claiming the intolerance is based on religion? Eh? I bet it would be quite simple to find dozens of passages in the bible to justify treating women unequally. So, why not allow that as well? Huh?

Your arguments condemning the progressives for being hypocritical are similarly off-base. The flaw in your argument is that you, and those like you, want to cloak your discriminatory conduct in religion. It's a time-honored habit. But, it's not right.

[timpage]

Oh, gee. Mike Pence is now ready to back an amendment to the law that you guys say does not discriminate....the amendment is designed to prevent the law from being used to...yeah, you guessed it....discriminate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6977170.html

So, I guess all of the folks you are quacking about who are complaining about the law....Mike Pence thinks they are correct?

Back to the drawing board boys.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I think this country needs to find a way to let people who have a legitimate conscientious religious objection to participating in these kinds of things to be exempted.

The Indiana law may not be perfect, but something needs to be done to protect a very small minority who don't want to be forced into submission against their religious beliefs.

As I understand it, this law wouldn't shield a person from providing normal services to customers, but would give some protection against being forced to do something against their will.

For example a pizza guy couldn't refuse to sell his pizzas to a gay couple that walked into his place of business for a slice. And the owner would be shielded from prosecution if that gay couple wanted the pizza guy to cater a gay wedding. And by "catering" it would mean the pizza proprietor had to be on premise, create special "gay" themed pizzas, etc.

i agree. With the same reasoning that allows gays to force people to work for them, Doctors who believe abortion is murder could be required to perform abortions.

Here is a "fantasy" scenario that TimPage thinks is too far fetched to occur, but really could: A male therapist is the only guy working one night a legit parlor such as Massage Envy. A gay guy comes in for a massage. He has to give him a massage. The gay guy gets a boner and sexually harasses the guy. Massage Envy gets sued for creating a hostile work environment because they would have fired the therapist if he wouldn't rub the gay customer.
If you believe in freedom, a small business owner (in a non essential business, at least) should have the right to deny service to anyone he doesn't like.
Would you bake a cake for ShamWow? If you don't like the guy, you shouldn't have to bake him a cake!!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by DSK

i agree. With the same reasoning that allows gays to force people to work for them, Doctors who believe abortion is murder could be required to perform abortions.

Here is a "fantasy" scenario that TimPage thinks is too far fetched to occur, but really could: A male therapist is the only guy working one night a legit parlor such as Massage Envy. A gay guy comes in for a massage. He has to give him a massage. The gay guy gets a boner and sexually harasses the guy. Massage Envy gets sued for creating a hostile work environment because they would have fired the therapist if he wouldn't rub the gay customer.
If you believe in freedom, a small business owner (in a non essential business, at least) should have the right to deny service to anyone he doesn't like.
Would you bake a cake for ShamWow? If you don't like the guy, you shouldn't have to bake him a cake!!

I ain't going anywhere near that "parlor"...

[shanm]

Are you trying to be an Idiot or does this come naturally to you?

Originally Posted by DSK

Doctors who believe abortion is murder could be required to perform abortions.

Let's see, a doctor who knows how to perform abortions...errr refuses to perform them!
Do you think he learned how to do them just to gloat at the annual christmas party? Jesus Christ you are a fucking tool.

[Yssup Rider]

Why am I not surprised to find you ignorant fucks supporting the outrage in Indiana.

I guess you forgot why the Pilgrims came here to begin with.

Conveniently.

don't teach that at Westboro Baptist, do they, you hillbilly douchenozzles.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by shanm

Are you trying to be an Idiot or does this come naturally to you?



Let's see, a doctor who knows how to perform abortions...errr refuses to perform them!
Do you think he learned how to do them just to gloat at the annual christmas party? Jesus Christ you are a fucking tool.

It is never a good idea to speak about things you know nothing about. Every doctor upon graduating medical school knows the principles of how to perform an abortion.

An abortion is simply a D&C, short for dilation and curettage. A doctor will learn how to perform a D&C as part of their OB/GYN course work.

D&C's are performed for a number of different reasons. In simple terms, the cervix is dilated, and the lining of the uterus removed. I have undergone a D&C twice, yet I have never been pregnant. I won't bore you with the reasons I needed the procedure, but it had nothing to do with pregnancy. D&C's are also commonly performed after a spontaneous abortion as well.

So yes, as a matter of fact, a Doctor who "knows" how to perform an abortion may still have a moral objection to performing one, and as such is legally allowed (for now at least) to refuse to perform one.

[CuteOldGuy]

Much ado about nothing. If you want a gay cake, and one bakery won't make it, there is one who wants your money. Bigots aren't hurting the gays, they are hurting themselves. Another bakery will see that market, and work for it. Why would a gay couple want to shop at a place that hates them? I'd rather give my money to a business that wants it.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

It is never a good idea to speak about things you know nothing about. Every doctor upon graduating medical school knows the principles of how to perform an abortion.

An abortion is simply a D&C, short for dilation and curettage. A doctor will learn how to perform a D&C as part of their OB/GYN course work.

D&C's are performed for a number of different reasons. In simple terms, the cervix is dilated, and the lining of the uterus removed. I have undergone a D&C twice, yet I have never been pregnant. I won't bore you with the reasons I needed the procedure, but it had nothing to do with pregnancy. D&C's are also commonly performed after a spontaneous abortion as well.

So yes, as a matter of fact, a Doctor who "knows" how to perform an abortion may still have a moral objection to performing one, and as such is legally allowed (for now at least) to refuse to perform one.

Did they kill satan's spawn when you "aborted" him?

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by shanm

Did the kill satan's spawn when you "aborted" him?

ROFL just curious how many hours you spent crafting this grammatical gem?