No discussion on the religious freedom bill signed by Indiana?
- Thread starter GeauxHerd
- Start date
Big Ten Network had on there about the NCAA not liking it and possibly reconsidering future events in Indianapolis. Then, someone from the Indianapolis Star got on there and said they have a lease for $1 a year to have their headquarters there.
So they just had to mention it as a token gesture, but they're not going anywhere.
So they just had to mention it as a token gesture, but they're not going anywhere.
As a private business they should be able to serve who they want. Let the market take care of them.
good. thats faux outrage anyways. I just cant see how we are a "free" nation if you are forced to make a cake for a gay wedding. If a gay couple doesnt like it (more faux outrage) then get another cake maker and quit being a cry baby.
I agree. But, homosexuals, being only a partially protected class, should not be the only group to face that allowance of discrimination. If I'm a private business owner and can refuse homos, I should also be able to do the same to the fully protects classes (based on gender, race, religion, handicap, etc.). Allowing one group to be discriminated against without all of them is not right.
And I would like to agree with your "let the market" take care of it, but that's not realistic. At many places, building a ramp for wheelchairs or giving accessible facilities for handicapped costs thousands of dollars. Small businesses would rather lose out on a $5 profit on a meal once a week then have to spend thousands of dollars in one chunk to build facilities for them. It would bar many handicapped from being able to go anywhere. Think of a small town of 5000 people. Do you think businesses there would spring thousands of dollars to help those in wheelchairs get access to their businesses knowinf that marginalizing those groups wouldn't hurt their bottom line much? Of course not. Ever driven through west Texas? You can drive there hundred miles and only pass a few gas stations. What if those stations refused to sell gasoline to blacks? Would enough people stop going to those few places that are needed because of that? Nope.
Ideally, a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone if this country were really free. But, it isn't feasible. The market doesn't come close to solving all in many situations. Allowing discrimination against homos without allowing the same discrimination against other protected classes is wrong and further alienates that group.
if you are born black or Jewish etc you can't avoid that. You CAN avoid putting your dick in someone's butt.
Ok, so you can also avoid putting your dick in another dudes hot wet mouth or putting a dudes throbbing member into your own mouth or hand. If a lesbian you can avoid: scissoring, oral sex (giving or receiving), strap on stuff, hand stuff etc. since you required this list of each individual action, and not a generalization
Being gay doesn't mean having to engage in sexual activities.
If I become totally celibate, does that mean I'm not straight anymore? Of course not. I'm still straight regardless of if I refrain from even holding hands with a female. Likewise, a guy not being physically intimate with another guy doesn't absolve them from being gay, if they are in fact, gay.
If I become totally celibate, does that mean I'm not straight anymore? Of course not. I'm still straight regardless of if I refrain from even holding hands with a female. Likewise, a guy not being physically intimate with another guy doesn't absolve them from being gay, if they are in fact, gay.
Just waiting for the religious bigots to get a hard on for adulterers, divorcees, pre-marital fornicators, drinkers, etc. Before long, I assume their businesses will close since Jesus Christ is the only one without sin, and he is no longer around to be a customer.
Correct Duke, this religious freedom law isn't limited to just the gays. You can also tell someone to GTFO if they were divorced or an adulterer etc
Any good business would probably still make the cake or whatever even if they didn't have to, if only the customer approached in a friendly manner. This whole bullying people into doing stuff they don't want to do doesn't work. It just gets people mad and makes them want to fight back however they can.
"You think I have to make you a cake? Forget you, buddy."
If it wasn't a pushing and shoving game, there would be no issue here.
"You think I have to make you a cake? Forget you, buddy."
If it wasn't a pushing and shoving game, there would be no issue here.
100% correct. Gay laws shoved down your throat (pun intended) = anti gay laws passed in retort.
I asked my grandma what they thought about gays back in the 40s and 50s and it wasnt really a controversial issue or topic of discussion back then. You kept your sexual business to yourself back in those days.
You are clueless.
Being celibate ate does not strip one of sexual preference. If I stopped having sex for a year, does that mean I'm neither gay nor straight?
im assuming ducky has never had sex (at least with a live human). Does that mean he isn't straight? When I was 12 years old and hadn't had sex yet, did that meant I wasn't straight at that time?
you can't argue this, as you are absolutely wrong.
You can have preferences either way, but you arent condemned (religiously) unless the act is played out. 1 corinthians 6:18-20 or unless you are lusting as well. This includes both getting your dick wet in a vagina that isnt yours or a dudes wet mouth.
Wondering how popular this religious freedom movement will be when alcoholic sales are refused to church goers.
Private businesses should be able to refuse anybody for any reason. Why should I be forced to sell something to someone?
you can attempt to sully the conversation as much as you want with trivial arguments. the fact is that being celibate does not absolve a person from being straight or gay which you argued that it did. not sucking a dick or putting it in a guy's ass does not absolve one from being gay, just like not having touched a snatch does not mean a guy isnt straight.
EG, I am waiting for the ragheads that own half the gas stations to stop selling to Christians, or infidels as they call us. And don't think it isn't coming...I have heard of Muslim cabdrivers refusing fares with alcohol.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Gay is an action. Im not dissing the gays here. They can put their weiners wherever they want, or rub their hot wet clitorises on each other. Its not my business. I wouldnt kick them out of my business if I was in a position to serve them, but it doesnt bother me if a guy refuses to make a penis cake for a gay wedding either, or if a Muslim refuses to pick up a drunk fare. Its a free country you can do whatever you want, so long as it doesnt affect someones daily life or health. Not making someone a cake doesnt constitute. Go to the next bakery or pick up the next cab. Next.
or the butt stuff or making out with a man etc. Until the act takes place the gay part is theoretical.
gay is not an action.
how old were you when you had sex the first time? lets pretend you were 16 and it was with a girl. were you not straight before having sex or engaging in sexual activity with a female? of course not. you were straight the entire time.
my mother was a school teacher for decades. she was able to tell at a very high rate which students were gay even at 11 years old. these students werent engaging in any gay sexual activities. so, were they not gay at this age? of course they were.
as i said before, you need to give up on this. your arguments are asinine and that's why you refuse to answer any of my questions and situations.
My argument is that the free exercise of religion is also a constitutional right. The distinction to me is that from the point of view of religion, being male or female, black, disabled etc is not a sin. But should a minister for hire be compelled by the government to marry a gay couple, when in doing so he would be not just facilitating the violation of his religion, but actively violating it himself? Personally I think that is a valid question.
But where do you draw the line? I certainly feel the minister has the right to not be forced to 'sin', in his eyes. But then can you also refuse a gay couple from your hotel? Can you refuse to serve a gay a coke? Because you'd have a hard time convincing me how serving a homosexual a coke would be a violation of your religion.
My point is, there are protections at stake on both sides here. There are certainly questions that need answered, and if additional laws can in a common sense way help establish these boundaries in BOTH directions. I'm for that.
Not to mention, somebody tell Hillary this is pretty much the same law that her husband signed in the 90's, just applied at a state and local level, something the federal law did not do.
What really gets me is this constant preaching of "tolerance". They aren't seeking tolerance. They are pushing their agenda on everyone. So the gay activists can call my faith offensive and hateful and that is acceptable. Yet Christians are not permitted to do the same.
So who am I to deny them their way of life. Well who are they to tell me what is right and wrong about my faith. They seek out Christians such as the Chick-fil-a owner and Miss California and ask them their views on gay marriage. Why? Because they know the answer they are going to receive. Why? To push their agenda.
When you choose a religion you don't then get to pick and choose what parts to believe. If one chooses to become a Christian then they acknowledge that God is our father and creator. So when he instructs us that homosexuality is indeed a sin who are they to question him. Who are they to tell him he is wrong.
Remember by calling a Christian a bigot based on their beliefs you are calling God a bigot.
Like I said earlier if they have the right to tell Christians they they're wrong why do Christians not have the same right? Christians can offend them but they can't offend Christians?
So who am I to deny them their way of life. Well who are they to tell me what is right and wrong about my faith. They seek out Christians such as the Chick-fil-a owner and Miss California and ask them their views on gay marriage. Why? Because they know the answer they are going to receive. Why? To push their agenda.
When you choose a religion you don't then get to pick and choose what parts to believe. If one chooses to become a Christian then they acknowledge that God is our father and creator. So when he instructs us that homosexuality is indeed a sin who are they to question him. Who are they to tell him he is wrong.
Remember by calling a Christian a bigot based on their beliefs you are calling God a bigot.
Like I said earlier if they have the right to tell Christians they they're wrong why do Christians not have the same right? Christians can offend them but they can't offend Christians?
You got pretty descriptive there. "Hot wet mouth...dudes throbbing member..."
I think I know why you're so upset about it.
I was hoping I was not the only one that raised a brow after reading his comments. Here he is in another thread talking about sucking a cock.
Why discuss something without all the details. Plus that's a play on the conversation in couples tetreat. Relax.
Exactly my point. Actions, or lack thereof, do not form the basis for gay or straight. Many gay guys hooked up with girls growing up. Societal norms and pressures played a major factor in that. The confusion pushes gays to take part in straight activities (fvcking girls). A gay poster on this board has admitted to hooking up with girls while younger but knowing it just didn't feel right. It didn't make him any less gay.
Actions or lack of actions, as you have argued, do not define a person's sexuality. If I were gang raped by 10 guys, does that make me gay? If a gay guy gets wasted and has a girl suck him off, does that make him straight? If I go celibate for two years, does that mean I'm not straight? The answer to all of those questions is "no," which is why you are wrong.
Any business owner can claim a bizarre religion and use it as a basis to not provide services to a hated group. That's the issue with this. Though it may seem reasonable for you for a christian to deny certain services to gays, to me, that is just as backwards as denying service based on race, gender, etc.
if you're going to open up and allow discrimination against one group, you better allow that freedom to be done to any and every group.
the five percenters is a religious group separated from the Nation of Islam. Many of the original founders of the percenters believed that blacks were the first on the earth, god's chosen people, and that whites were inferior in all ways and selected to be here as symbols of the devil. Many percenters refuse doing business with the devils. Do you support these business owners refusing any type of service to whites? Would the Indiana governor allow that?
Sure. A private business that does that will not remain open very long.
Liberals have a hard time distinguishing between private and government authority.
A private business owner in the South prior to 1965 was supported by the gun of the local sheriff and the law on the books.
The 5 percenters are only backed up by the owner of the business's capital. I'll open up a business next door and make gobs of money while he/she goes bankrupt.
Liberals have a hard time distinguishing between private and government authority.
A private business owner in the South prior to 1965 was supported by the gun of the local sheriff and the law on the books.
The 5 percenters are only backed up by the owner of the business's capital. I'll open up a business next door and make gobs of money while he/she goes bankrupt.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Marshall Athletics Announces Hall of Fame Class of 2024
- Latest: herdfan1999