Indiana's Govenor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill

[Polaris]

Heywood



   Polaris
   I'm a progressive and don't hold to that belief. I believe forcing people into adopting or even expressly accepting a particular lifestyle is wrong.


This is the only thing I know about your positions so I would classify you as libertarian.

People should be free to behave the way they want unless there is a real compelling interest otherwise.  When society as a whole begins to deny gays access to goods and services, that could be a compelling interest.  When it is just an occasional baker or photographer that doesn't want to service the gay community....that isn't a compelling interest.

Forcing an individual baker to service a market segment that is being serviced is simply imposing your morality on him or her.

I am a Democratic Socialist more in line with the Green Party. I was categorized as a Libertarian at one point, but that was many years ago when I was in college.

[Heywood]

This isn't about making sure gays have equal access.  They do.  This is about controlling people.

And the bible isn't?
This legislation is insanely stupid. Your assessment that it is about controlling people is even dumber. You have an ancient text prescribing thought and behavior at the base of all this, but this control of people doesn't seem to bother you. A tad bit hypocritical here.

Narrator: Having lost the argument about the Indiana Law, the opposition attempts to make a completely different argument.....this one is about the bible.

Heywood: Sorry bro, I have never read the bible.  I don't know a whole lot about what is in it.  Go pick your fight about the bible with someone else.

[Minimalist]

You're still a dumbfuck, woodie.   I doubt you'll ever change.

[DeistPaladin]

Court asks the plaintiff, "Did you ask if this was a gay wedding?  If it was really that important to you, why didn't you ask?"  I don't believe this laws allows you to breach a contract.  It allows you to not enter a contract.

The reason this law exists is because people were being forced to service gay weddings against their morality.  Now it would be one thing if gays were shut out of the market and denied these services.  But there was no desperate impact and thus no need for the courts to compel individuals to do things against their will. 

Again, you progressives just want to force people to behave the way you think they should behave.  Your not any different than  slave owners as far as I am concerned.

You and I are agreed that any Christian who backs out of a contract at the 11th hour to cater to a wedding should be sued for breach of contract and damages to the couple on their special day. Citing religious objections should not be a good reason for the last minute reneging on the contract. 

And that's what prompted this legislation. 

Rest assured, no one in their right mind wants unwilling labor servicing critical functions on their wedding day. I don't know if you've ever been married but if you have, you know what I'm talking about. 

[Heywood]

You're still a dumbfuck, woodie.   I doubt you'll ever change.

And your still an ass.  The world will be a much better place when you finally give up your ghost.

[Minimalist]

If ghosts are real I will haunt your stupid ass.  Watch your back, douchebag.

[Heywood]

Court asks the plaintiff, "Did you ask if this was a gay wedding?  If it was really that important to you, why didn't you ask?"  I don't believe this laws allows you to breach a contract.  It allows you to not enter a contract.

The reason this law exists is because people were being forced to service gay weddings against their morality.  Now it would be one thing if gays were shut out of the market and denied these services.  But there was no desperate impact and thus no need for the courts to compel individuals to do things against their will. 

Again, you progressives just want to force people to behave the way you think they should behave.  Your not any different than  slave owners as far as I am concerned.

You and I are agreed that any Christian who backs out of a contract at the 11th hour to cater to a wedding should be sued for breach of contract and damages to the couple on their special day. Citing religious objections should not be a good reason for the last minute reneging on the contract. 

And that's what prompted this legislation. 

Rest assured, no one in their right mind wants unwilling labor servicing critical functions on their wedding day. I don't know if you've ever been married but if you have, you know what I'm talking about. 

What prompted this legislation is bakers and photographers being sued for refusing to service gay weddings.    I bet that in those cases, once the couple found out the business did not want to service them, they didn't want the business to service them either......but why then would they go on to sue those businesses?  Because they wanted to force their morality upon them.  They wanted a civil rights trophy at the expense of destroying individual freedom.  This law is direct response to that.

Disparate impact is one thing. Correcting it might be worth giving up some individual freedom.  Trophies are not.  Be careful what you wish for.  One day your individual rights might be usurped for someone else's trophy.  Maybe they are today.  

---

If ghosts are real I will haunt your stupid ass.  Watch your back, douchebag.

I'm not worried.  You're too stupid.  You couldn't haunt a doll house.

[Cato]

And the bible isn't?
This legislation is insanely stupid. Your assessment that it is about controlling people is even dumber. You have an ancient text prescribing thought and behavior at the base of all this, but this control of people doesn't seem to bother you. A tad bit hypocritical here.

Narrator: Having lost the argument about the Indiana Law, the opposition attempts to make a completely different argument.....this one is about the bible.

Heywood: Sorry bro, I have never read the bible.  I don't know a whole lot about what is in it.  Go pick your fight about the bible with someone else.

No dipshit, I simply pointed out how vacuous your charge of 'controlling people' is when compared to the source of the proposed legislation. I am in no way changing the argument pigeon. My use of 'you' was meant to address those that support this idiotic bill; it was not meant to suggest your fealty to the fucking book. Your knowledge of the Bible is immaterial and does not change the fact that its contents and its interpretation is the source of this bigoted bullshit. 

I suppose you're confused about my use of the word pigeon too. The Bible isn't the only thing you don't know a whole lot about. 

[Heywood]

Narrator: Having lost the argument about the Indiana Law, the opposition attempts to make a completely different argument.....this one is about the bible.

Heywood: Sorry bro, I have never read the bible.  I don't know a whole lot about what is in it.  Go pick your fight about the bible with someone else.

No dipshit, I simply pointed out how vacuous your charge of 'controlling people' is when compared to the source of the proposed legislation. I am in no way changing the argument pigeon. My use of 'you' was meant to address those that support this idiotic bill; it was not meant to suggest your fealty to the fucking book. Your knowledge of the Bible is immaterial and does not change the fact that its contents and its interpretation is the source of this bigoted bullshit. 

I suppose you're confused about my use of the word pigeon too. The Bible isn't the only thing you don't know a whole lot about. 

Yeah dummy,

The source of the legislation isn't the bible.  It is seeing people persecuted for not behaving in a way you progessivetards think they should behave.  Were it not for these persecutions, this law would not exist.

You can delude yourself into thinking this is about the bible.....but it isn't.  It is about individual freedom.  Let people be free to do as they please unless there is some compelling interest otherwise.  In this case, there was no compelling interest.  You just want to punish people because they don't think and act like you do.  You are despicable in that sense.

When gay people can't easily find florists or bakers to serve at their weddings, then maybe we need anti-discrimination laws, until that day happens, I will applaud every attempt to stop evil people like you from controlling the lives of others for no good reason other than you want too.

  

[Brakeman]

Yeah Cato!, Da gays can buy their cakes & pizzas elsewhere, haven't you heard of "Separate but Equal?"