MDC 5,893 Posted March 31, 2015 huh? do their jobs? maybe they're just sick of the gay agenda at every turn....lgbt nights at the ballpark, forcing it on children in school, etc. also don't you go to unitarian church? what do they believe in? the belief of believing in nothing? Yes, stop worrying about what other people do in their bedrooms and do your focking job. Don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple? Grow up and stop being such a focking phaggot. I mean that in the Louis CK way, not the Greenwich Village way. Yes I go to Unitarian Church, they have no issues with the gays. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 31, 2015 Nobody has the right to a swastika t-shirt How does it stomp on other's rights? I see signs in store windows quite often that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". If there's a sign it must be true. God you are focking dumb. So, I guess you have changed your position and businesses to have the right to refuse service. Crawfish much? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,039 Posted March 31, 2015 Like you I had no idea what all the fuss was about. So I googled. Seems all this is much to do about nothing really. Here is a good Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/30/what-will-the-indiana-religious-freedom-law-really-do/ So in other words this law or versions very much like it are in a bunch of states already and it wont do what everybody is crying over. This is being blown way out of proportion. Whole lot of ignorance and intolerance in this thread. Try reading up on the topic next time folks. You've been duped and once again took the media frenzy fake story hook, line and sinker. On Friday, the Washington Post published an article titled “19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting.” The article snarks about organizations like the NCAA that have protested Indiana’s law, noting “the NCAA didn’t say it was concerned over how athletes and employees would be affected by Kentucky’s RFRA when games were played there last week.” The piece concludes “Indiana might be treated as if it’s the only state with a bill like this, but it’s not.” The piece has been shared over 75,000 times on Facebook. The Washington Post article largely mirrors the argument advanced by Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Pence claimed “Then state-Sen. Barack Obama voted for [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act]. The very same language.” The same argument is parroted on Fox News and elsewhere. It’s not true. The Indiana law differs substantially from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993, and all other state RFRAs. There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.* This means it could be used as a cudgel by corporations to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law. Indiana trial lawyer Matt Anderson, discussing this difference, writes that the Indiana law is “more broadly written than its federal and state predecessors” and opens up “the path of least resistance among its species to have a court adjudicate it in a manner that could ultimately be used to discriminate…” The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law - (shonuff link.) Perhaps you should read more than one (conservative) source before claiming others are ignorant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,893 Posted March 31, 2015 So, I guess you have changed your position and businesses to have the right to refuse service. Crawfish much? WTF does that even mean? I have an idea: Why don't you go bake a chocolate dong cake and bring it to poker night at Jose's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 513 Posted March 31, 2015 Romans 13:1-7 states, Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Doesn't this say that Christians are to follow mans law? God created the governing authorities, so to disobey governing law is equal to disobeying God? So if the law of the land is you can't discriminate, then according to this passage you can't violate mans law even if Christians are morally against certain laws. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 31, 2015 Why don't you go back a chocolate dong cake As far as I can tell, you are the only one harping about dong cakes, Cupcake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,893 Posted March 31, 2015 As far as I can tell, you are the only one harping about dong cakes, Cupcake. First I ever heard of a dong cake was from porkbutt. I also see you often accuse others of sucking Obummer's cack or swinging from his nuts. You sound like a couple of Ted Phaggard types. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 31, 2015 Where in this law does it say "gay", or specifically address homosexuals? tic....toc........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,083 Posted March 31, 2015 The Washington Post isn't a conservative newspaper. It's generally regarded more liberal similar to the NY Times. Now the "Think Progress" website, that's your unbiased, middle of the road website though. Memo to dummies: Any RFRA law, Indiana or any other states, doesn't give unilateral rights to discriminate. It doesn't trump other protected rights and classes of people. It doesn't stop a ghey marraige or the like. What it does is protect individuals religious beliefs IF can be shown as much in a court of law. There has to be proof and it has to be proven to satisfaction in front of a judge. It's not like starting July 1st Ghey people will be persecuted or discriminated, nobody is stopping anybody from doing anything, getting married or anything. Good Grief. The term Fake Outrage is over played here so its lost its meaning, but if there was ever a time it was warranted its in this Indiana "issue". Geebus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 Yes, stop worrying about what other people do in their bedrooms and do your focking job. Don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple? Grow up and stop being such a focking phaggot. I mean that in the Louis CK way, not the Greenwich Village way. Yes I go to Unitarian Church, they have no issues with the gays. yeah well some people believe in god and and traditional marriage. deal with it. i know all about the first unitarian church...they have openly gay ministers and whatnot. they don't believe in an imaginary cloud man there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,893 Posted March 31, 2015 yeah well some people believe in god and and traditional marriage. deal with it. i know all about the first unitarian church...they have openly gay ministers and whatnot. they don't believe in an imaginary cloud man there? I don't care what you believe in. That doesn't give you or some hypothetical baker / photographer whatever the right to discriminate. I barely get to church anymore but it is a Christian church that focuses heavily on the New Testament. I had the feeling a lot if people there were actually atheists / agnostics who nonetheless have a sense of spirituality but that's just a guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 The Washington Post isn't a conservative newspaper. It's generally regarded more liberal similar to the NY Times. Now the "Think Progress" website, that's your unbiased, middle of the road website though. Memo to dummies: Any RFRA law, Indiana or any other states, doesn't give unilateral rights to discriminate. It doesn't trump other protected rights and classes of people. It doesn't stop a ghey marraige or the like. What it does is protect individuals religious beliefs IF can be shown as much in a court of law. There has to be proof and it has to be proven to satisfaction if in front of a judge. Ghey marriages will go on, nobody is stopping anybody from doing anything. Good Grief. they should go back to fake outraging dolce gabbana Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 I don't care what you believe in. That doesn't give you or some hypothetical baker / photographer whatever the right to discriminate. I barely get to church anymore but it is a Christian church that focuses heavily on the New Testament. I had the feeling a lot if people there were actually atheists / agnostics who nonetheless have a sense of spirituality but that's just a guess. so you don't believe in a cloud man? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,893 Posted March 31, 2015 so you don't believe in a cloud man? In pretty much agnostic leaning toward atheist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 Wait, you all were claiming it wasn't about the gheys. Forcing it on children....hah Good one. they don't want it taught in school? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 31, 2015 The Washington Post isn't a conservative newspaper. It's generally regarded more liberal similar to the NY Times. Now the "Think Progress" website, that's your unbiased, middle of the road website though. Memo to dummies: Any RFRA law, Indiana or any other states, doesn't give unilateral rights to discriminate. It doesn't trump other protected rights and classes of people. It doesn't stop a ghey marraige or the like. What it does is protect individuals religious beliefs IF can be shown as much in a court of law. There has to be proof and it has to be proven to satisfaction in front of a judge. It's not like starting July 1st Ghey people will be persecuted or discriminated, nobody is stopping anybody from doing anything, getting married or anything. Good Grief. The term Fake Outrage is over played here so its lost its meaning, but if there was ever a time it was warranted its in this Indiana "issue". Geebus. Its great that you and drobs did just what I said you would...after your ilk have been whining about attacking the messenger...you dismiss the think progress article because of the link...but none of you can refute what it had to say about the differences in the laws. Memo to you...it actually does give businesses the right to discriminate. Nobody is claiming it will stop a gay marriage (but interesting how this law came up after a failed attempt in that state to ban gay marriage. You keep claiming fake outrage because none of you can refute what is being said about the possibility of discrimination... Even the focking governor refuses to answer if it will allow businesses to discriminate against gays. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-indiana-governor-interview-20150329-story.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 In pretty much agnostic leaning toward atheist. i dunno man....atheists have killed alot of people...more than the crusades Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 31, 2015 yeah well some people believe in god and and traditional marriage. deal with it. i know all about the first unitarian church...they have openly gay ministers and whatnot. they don't believe in an imaginary cloud man there? I believe in god and traditional marriage. So what? I also believe we are all created by god as equal and should be granted equal rights and that includes the rights of gays to marry and I understand their rights do not affect my marriage or belief in god one bit. In addition...there is not a single thing in the bible that would keep a Christian business from providing services to gays. NOTHING!!! Again...its the exact opposite of what Jesus taught and did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted March 31, 2015 This was a priority in Indiana, no more important issues to engage. I wish they would concentrate on not being a "taker" state. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord4GL 4 Posted March 31, 2015 Romans 13:1-7 states, Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Doesn't this say that Christians are to follow mans law? God created the governing authorities, so to disobey governing law is equal to disobeying God? So if the law of the land is you can't discriminate, then according to this passage you can't violate mans law even if Christians are morally against certain laws. You're cherry picking what you wish to hear. By no means are Christians bound to do morally wrong things. The state cannot force you to change your moral position; the state cannot force you to steal; the state cannot force you to worship anything other than God. The early church defied authority from day one. Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. The early church refused emperor worship for example. By your logic, there would never have been an American revolution either. Quiet a few protestants involved in that. Yet they went on to defy England. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 31, 2015 Where in this law does it say "gay", or specifically address homosexuals? tic....toc........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,893 Posted March 31, 2015 i dunno man....atheists have killed alot of people...more than the crusades White flag Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reality 2,710 Posted March 31, 2015 KSB should drop the mic and walk off stage. Fake outrage at this point, has replaced plain 'ol outrage. It is just assumed fake, no point in even qualifying it any longer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 White flag Mao Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead Vladimir Lenin, Atheist: 5.5 million dead Kim-II-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 31, 2015 Mao Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead Vladimir Lenin, Atheist: 5.5 million dead Kim-II-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead DOWN GOES PEENIEDC!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted March 31, 2015 Mao Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead Vladimir Lenin, Atheist: 5.5 million dead Kim-II-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead Hitler killed 15 million people by himself? Where did he ever find the time? He must have had help, a lot of help. A lot of Christian help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 Hitler killed 15 million people by himself? Where did he ever find the time? He must have had help, a lot of help. A lot of Christian help. no atheist help? how about agnostic help? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted March 31, 2015 I will add that in terms of intolerance, the left is very very intolerant. And they are seeking absolute control. Lets take the definition of marriage.... Who gets to determine the definition of marriage? Not the relgious institution from which it came, but liberal activists... Why couldn't marriage be between 3 people? Its not about fair, its about control.. .Always has been, always will be. If you don't agree with liberal activists you get the bigot jargon... Thats the gameplan. its not complicated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bishop82 61 Posted March 31, 2015 The government should force people to believe in a religion, so these atheists would stop all these genocides. That's the ticket! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted March 31, 2015 The Washington Post isn't a conservative newspaper. It's generally regarded more liberal similar to the NY Times. Now the "Think Progress" website, that's your unbiased, middle of the road website though. Memo to dummies: Any RFRA law, Indiana or any other states, doesn't give unilateral rights to discriminate. It doesn't trump other protected rights and classes of people. It doesn't stop a ghey marraige or the like. What it does is protect individuals religious beliefs IF can be shown as much in a court of law. There has to be proof and it has to be proven to satisfaction in front of a judge. It's not like starting July 1st Ghey people will be persecuted or discriminated, nobody is stopping anybody from doing anything, getting married or anything. Good Grief. The term Fake Outrage is over played here so its lost its meaning, but if there was ever a time it was warranted its in this Indiana "issue". Geebus. thats the point... without precedent it takes one court case with a hardline conservative judge to set precedent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,893 Posted March 31, 2015 Mao Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead Vladimir Lenin, Atheist: 5.5 million dead Kim-II-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead Wow that sure is quite a list. Course it has nothing to do with me educating you on the fact that you do not have the right to refuse service just because you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Huge fail by porkbutt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted March 31, 2015 Who gets to determine the definition of marriage? Not the relgious institution from which it came, but liberal activists... Which "religious institution" invented the concept of marriage? Certainly not any Christian institution since it predates Christ by thousands of years. I'm pretty sure Zeus was married, wasn't he? When did he live again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted March 31, 2015 no atheist help? how about agnostic help? I'm sure they helped too, and some Jews helped as well. But mostly Christians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bishop82 61 Posted March 31, 2015 I'm sure they helped too, and some Jews helped as well. But mostly Christians. Who knew all those kosher meals made them more combustible? Don't ban me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted March 31, 2015 Some might think being forced to provide flowers/cakes/photography to a ghey wedding would be forcing them to participate in what they consider a sin, and as such, a violation of their right to religious freedom. Too nuanced for you I guess. I assume this paragon of morality also refuses to ply his trade at weddings where the couple already has a child, or where alcohol is consumed. Otherwise he is a hypocritical tvvat. Not to mention the fact that, if the prohibitions outlined in liviticus are so important to him, he should refuse to work any wedding where any guest is menstrating, or where any guest had recently ejaculated. Or we could leave ancient Jewish law in the history books where it belongs and act like we live in the 21st century. Oh, and he should probably read that whole "new testament" thing. There's a bunch of good stuff in there about hate some, but love the sinner, judge but lest ye be judged, etc. So the should probably just follow jesus' advice and render into Caesar (obedience to noon discrimination laws) and quit being a bunch of focking hysterical tvvats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 Wow that sure is quite a list. Course it has nothing to do with me educating you on the fact that you do not have the right to refuse service just because you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Huge fail by porkbutt. i hear the flying spaghetti monster actually appeared in the basement of the first unitarian church. was you telling me i don't have to make a swastika shirt part of the education? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 31, 2015 So the should probably just follow jesus' advice and render into Caesar (obedience to noon discrimination laws) and quit being a bunch of focking hysterical tvvats. Seems to me the hysterical twats are your ilk running around p1ssing your pants about something that hasn't happened yet. Once again, show me in the law where it addresses homosexuality.... tic.....toc..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porkbutt 861 Posted March 31, 2015 I assume this paragon of morality also refuses to ply his trade at weddings where the couple already has a child, or where alcohol is consumed. Otherwise he is a hypocritical tvvat. Not to mention the fact that, if the prohibitions outlined in liviticus are so important to him, he should refuse to work any wedding where any guest is menstrating, or where any guest had recently ejaculated. Or we could leave ancient Jewish law in the history books where it belongs and act like we live in the 21st century. Oh, and he should probably read that whole "new testament" thing. There's a bunch of good stuff in there about hate some, but love the sinner, judge but lest ye be judged, etc. So the should probably just follow jesus' advice and render into Caesar (obedience to noon discrimination laws) and quit being a bunch of focking hysterical tvvats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted March 31, 2015 Did we figure out if gocolts can put up a "no gays allowed" sign in his wheelchair shop? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted March 31, 2015 Indiana has a huge Chrystal meth problem. They really should get on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
