The State of Hate
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
witness23
Veteran Expediter
You'd think some would learn not to put the cart before the horse in this 24hour news cycle world we live in. lmao
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Boy, Pence really screwed the pooch on this one didn't he?
Not only did the likes of NASCAR, NCAA, Levi Strauss and numerous other corporations come out against this law, he even garnered support from potential Republican Presidential candidates(Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Santorum, Jindal and Rubio) before he had to put his tail between his legs and backtracked on the law.
Not only did the likes of NASCAR, NCAA, Levi Strauss and numerous other corporations come out against this law, he even garnered support from potential Republican Presidential candidates(Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Santorum, Jindal and Rubio) before he had to put his tail between his legs and backtracked on the law.
The customer is always right. The customer always comes first. Effective immediately those against service providers being allowed to decide which customers to accept or reject will not be allowed to turn down any load offer from dispatch, After all, expediting is a service provided to the customers, the shippers. Therefore it would not be right to turn down any load, even if it goes against your principles of pay or location or any other factor important to you but obviously not important to those who want their freight shipped. No is no longer an allowable word. You know who you are. No more turndowns.
The Washing Post (a BLOG?) is not exactly a champion of conservative causes. Did you even read the article? You obviously don't have any grasp of the language and intent of ANY of the RFRA laws, including the Federal legislation. The squealing from the liberal wackos about this so-called anti gay legislation is nothing but political theater designed to gin up their base and create an issue where there is none.
This militant homosexual agenda completely ignores the rights of certain other groups, in this case religions who don't go along with redefining marriage as it has been recognized and practiced for thousands of years. But other cases have been effected such as Hobby Lobby mentioned in the above article. Personally, I'm still waiting to see what happens when a gay couple goes into a Muslim owned deli / catering service and demands that they cater their wedding, complete with pork sandwiches; or perhaps the pregnant woman who demands that a Roman Catholic doctor perform her abortion. The militant gays already have their equal rights, buy they continue to insist they be more equal than others - especially those who take their religion seriously.
Reduced to its simplest terms, this brouhaha is a struggle between competing rights. It comes as a shock to the Left, but religious individuals have guaranteed rights pertaining to the free exercise of religion. If a person feels he or she has been subjected to discrimination by individuals or businesses holding religious objections, the plaintiff can take the matter into court for adjudication. The religious freedom laws seek to provide a level playing field where, too often recently, the homosexual community has asserted their rights trump those who refuse to participate in objectionable ceremonies. Courts of law will decide if a wrong has taken place. The religious freedom laws re-enforce the 1st amendment by providing a legal defense against forced participation in ceremonies or transactions odious to religious objectors.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOL ... yeah ... you'd think ...
Our very own little Talibanista's and their Holy Agenda of Bigotry are about to get tossed under the bus ... yet again ...
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Too friggen' funny man.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
What are you even talking about? Here is another incorrect claim. I never said that the law was the same as in other states. You are lost.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
What do you see him backtracking on? He has been saying from the start that the bill was not to be used for discrimination.
That very well could be. But the way it is written , "not to be used for" and how it would be used are two different things.
With all the issues going on at the state level, I not following why they are even spending time on this? Too many other things to worry about.
"They" [meaning both sides] are spending time on it because the conservative extremists believed they could pass a law like the others, but without any protection for gay people - which the others do have.
The original [Federal] religious freedom bill was the result of unintended consequences stemming from the war on drugs. Making it illegal to possess or ingest narcotics [except as prescribed by a duly authorized doctor] was a problem for the Native Americans who had been using peyote & mescaline in their sacred ceremonies since long before the Europeans moved in and took over. To prevent their being arrested for continuing their religious practices, the Feds created the Religious Freedom Act. The Supremes, however, decided it doesn't apply to the states, who could write their own, and many did.
The intent of the Federal and the previous state laws was not to protect Christian beliefs that some people are unworthy, and most Americans do not support using it that way.