The State of Hate

[x06col]

"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.

Give it up folks. Cry after you get bit........not before.

 

[cheri1122]

How many times can you possibly be wrong and still comment like you speak the truth or know any facts? Pence has stated point blank that this bill is not for discrimination and said that no one should be discriminating against gays. They have already said that they are going to clarify the matter. Stop parroting what you read on Facebook and try watching the actual interviews so you actually know what was adressed and what wasn't. Just watch the ABC News interview of Pence or any other interviews with reps.

Pence said "this bill is not for discrimination".
You believe he is speaking the truth, even though he has repeatedly [6 times in one interview!] refused to answer the question of whether it could be used to discriminate against gays, and would only state that "it will be clarified" in some vague nonspecific way. When asked whether it would be changed to prevent discrimination against gays he said "That is not on my agenda."

And you called who "gullible"?
You then slung some harsh words about my knowledge, sources - even said "stop parroting what you read on facebook" [as if you knew anything of the sort - talk about speaking truth and knowing facts: you most definitely don't].
Somebody here is gullible, and guilty of posting hastily, without possession of the facts, and with an agenda: smear the [supposed] liberal.
Look in the mirror, Paullud. You accuse me of being wrong, not speaking the truth or knowing any facts, but you cannot provide a single example of an untruth, when challenged to do so. You just continue to cast false aspersions and spew hostility instead.
I understand that some people are having a tough time accepting that their religious beliefs are not required to be observed by or imposed upon others, but lashing out at me changes nothing - except the perception of how sincere your Christianity really is.

 

[aristotle]

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson went wobbly today after reneging on his promise to sign the religious freedom bill passed just 24 hours ago. He couldn't stand the heat from Walmart and corporate entities. Does the Chamber of Commerce own the souls of these invertebrates? What a disgrace.

 

[paullud]

Pence said "this bill is not for discrimination".
You believe he is speaking the truth, even though he has repeatedly [6 times in one interview!] refused to answer the question of whether it could be used to discriminate against gays, and would only state that "it will be clarified" in some vague nonspecific way. When asked whether it would be changed to prevent discrimination against gays he said "That is not on my agenda."

He repeated a few times that it was not for discrimination and that Hoosiers don't believe in discrimination. Other reps have said the same thing and that they would clarify that point. Homosexuals are a protected class on a federal level anyway so this whole thing is pointless because a court would quickly crush any discrimination. He avoided getting involved in the debate that the propaganda got everyone fired up over.

And you called who "gullible"?
You then slung some harsh words about my knowledge, sources - even said "stop parroting what you read on facebook" [as if you knew anything of the sort - talk about speaking truth and knowing facts: you most definitely don't].

You are parroting what you read and hear without knowing the facts. You even used a link from Think Progress in this thread so it's clear where you get your "facts" from.

Somebody here is gullible, and guilty of posting hastily, without possession of the facts, and with an agenda: smear the [supposed] liberal.

I simply pointed out that you were wrong. You then tried to throw yourself a pity party because I pointed out that you constantly post incorrect or uneducated claims. You do it a lot and it's just getting ridiculous.

Look in the mirror, Paullud. You accuse me of being wrong, not speaking the truth or knowing any facts, but you cannot provide a single example of an untruth, when challenged to do so. You just continue to cast false aspersions and spew hostility instead.

Actually, I just ignored the request because I clearly pointed out a few times in this thread that your claims were wrong. Your inability to follow a conversation doesn't mean that it becomes my burden to do the work for you.

I understand that some people are having a tough time accepting that their religious beliefs are not required to be observed by or imposed upon others, but lashing out at me changes nothing - except the perception of how sincere your Christianity really is.

Edit:
I see things from both sides but the concern of discrimination is just to get people worked up. It's not about imposing their views on others but about simply maintaining their beliefs. As for "lashing out" that's pretty much a joke at this point. You are not a victim and you throw the exact same types of little jabs at people. You do it quite a bit actually.

 

[RLENT]

I see things from both sides but the concern of discrimination is just to get people worked up.

Yeah ... don't think so ...

It's not about imposing their views on others but about simply maintaining their beliefs.

Hey ... anyone can believe whatever they want as far as I'm concerned ... and even share it ... which makes for some really great entertainment at times ...

But if one is operating a business which serves the general public, then just suck it up and serve your customers ... whoever they may be ...

Providing a good or service doesn't require one to give up one's beliefs ... regardless of who one is serving.

 

[RLENT]

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson went wobbly today after reneging on his promise to sign the religious freedom bill passed just 24 hours ago. He couldn't stand the heat from Walmart and corporate entities. Does the Chamber of Commerce own the souls of these invertebrates? What a disgrace.

The carcass of Social Conservatism is so rotten that the stench is becoming unbearable.

Do your part and pick up a shovel and lend a hand ....

I'm a Republican — and social conservatism must be stopped

[URL='http://www.salon.com/2014/05/17/r_i_p_social_conservatism_why_its_dying_—_and_the_coming_realignment/']R.I.P. social conservatism: Why it's dying — and the coming realignment
[/URL]

BTW - the business of Amerika is BUSINESS ... not who is marrying who ...

 

[muttly]

 

[witness23]

What's your point? While your giving your point, go ahead and add a link to the whole bill not just a section of it.

 

[muttly]

The point is I posted the addendum to the bill, duh.
For information purposes.Why do I need to post the entire bill when this thread has gone over it for the past few days? Do you not understand the bill? Lol

 

[witness23]

The point is I posted the addendum to the bill, duh.
For information purposes.Why do I need to post the entire bill when this thread has gone over it for the past few days? Do you not understand the bill? Lol

Don't be daft. So what's your opinion of the addendum to the bill, duh.

I didn't say "post the entire bill", I said add a link to the bill as a courtesy to others reading the forum that may not know that was the addendum.

 

[muttly]

I thought it was rather obvious what I posted previously,but here is a link that includes the addendum. I personally don't have any objections to gay marriage or servicing them, but I understand if someone who has a religious objection should want a day in court to at least hear their grievance. The court, in the end, is the final arbiter. Are you against someone, with a religous objection, to be allowed a day in court?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6992184

 

[LDB]

Interesting videos of calls to gay bakeries asking for a cake that goes against their preferences.

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/chris...age-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

 

[paullud]

But if one is operating a business which serves the general public, then just suck it up and serve your customers ... whoever they may be ...

Providing a good or service doesn't require one to give up one's beliefs ... regardless of who one is serving.

I understand the concern of being forced to participate in something that goes against your beliefs but I don't understand why they think it does. For a wedding the cake would be provided for the reception and not the ceremony but I guess they see the whole process as one act. At some point it just seems like the customer would just say, screw you I'll take my money to the other guy. Trying to force acceptance doesn't really work in a free society.

 

[Pilgrim]

This whole IN uproar is not about denying gay rights - it's about labeling the Republicans in a red state as bigots, haters, radical right wingers, etc. in preparation for the upcoming elections. Pence had been mentioned occasionally as a darkhorse candidate for the GOP nomination, so he makes a convenient target for the liberal hatchet men and their accomplices in the MSM. As mentioned in a previous article, none of these RFRA laws has been used to defend discrimination against gays - ever. However, that doesn't make any difference to the Democrat hacks and militant homosexual movement who will do or say anything to impose their agenda on the American people who may not agree with their definition of marriage. If their agenda imposes a burden on or curtails the rights of freedom to practice one's religion - too bad. The goal is to ignite the liberal base by demonizing their opponents in 2016.

 

[cheri1122]

I simply pointed out that you were wrong. You then tried to throw yourself a pity party because I pointed out that you constantly post incorrect or uneducated claims. You do it a lot and it's just getting ridiculous.

You claim that I "constantly post wrong or incorrect claims", and the sole example you provide is that Governor Pence "repeatedly stated that it was not for discrimination"?
Pence's refusal to answer the straight out question of whether the bill could be used to discriminate against gays, [every single time he was asked], added to his well known history of opposition to same sex marriage, his private signing ceremony for the bill where the invitees were well known anti gay groups and religious representatives who also support the "freedom of religion" to discriminate, [check out the photo, lol], even his statement "I am a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican - in that order." all point to the fact that his denial of intent to facilitate discrimination is a big fat lie.
The incorrect and uneducated view is that Pence was just misunderstood, and "the gay agenda" is wrong to attack: IOW, your view. The correct and educated view is that Pence is a lying politician who pursues his personal agenda, then weasles when called out on it [as many people do in public forums], IOW: my view. Also, incidentally, the view of a large number of corporate CEOs, other governors & senators, and countless other educated and influential people. Including a great many many in his own political party and state.
Oh: you also stated that gays are protected on a federal level, but not that the Supreme Court ruled that it doesn't apply to the states, [which is the reason for the states passing their own RFA acts]. I pointed that out in an earlier post, did you not understand it? Or do you simply ignore the facts that don't fit your views?

What's ridiculous is the steady drumbeat of personal attacks because you disagree with me. Ditto the smear tactics, such as "You even posted a link from Think Progress, so it's clear where you get your facts from". We notice you don't [can't] refute the facts, or even address them - just dismiss the source, [because you got nothin else, lol].
Either post facts that support your contentions, or shut up, already.

 

[cheri1122]

This whole IN uproar is not about denying gay rights - it's about labeling the Republicans in a red state as bigots, haters, radical right wingers, etc. in preparation for the upcoming elections. Pence had been mentioned occasionally as a darkhorse candidate for the GOP nomination, so he makes a convenient target for the liberal hatchet men and their accomplices in the MSM. As mentioned in a previous article, none of these RFRA laws has been used to defend discrimination against gays - ever. However, that doesn't make any difference to the Democrat hacks and militant homosexual movement who will do or say anything to impose their agenda on the American people who may not agree with their definition of marriage. If their agenda imposes a burden on or curtails the rights of freedom to practice one's religion - too bad. The goal is to ignite the liberal base by demonizing their opponents in 2016.

Maybe you can expound upon the reason many Republicans in "red states" are not supporting Pence, are even, in fact, disclaiming him.
I guess you think the CEOs of WalMart and numerous other major corporations are "liberal hatchet men" too?
The fact that none of the RFRA acts has ever been used to defend discrimination against gays might possibly be because none left gays out of the protections, as Indiana's did.
Religious beliefs cannot be a legal defense for illegal acts, period. Because every religion has it's own, and they change over time, and they are exactly what the entire basis of our common law was created to prevent: the imposition of one religion's beliefs upon everyone else.

 

[muttly]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...f-arizonas-religious-freedom-bill-i/?page=all

 

[ysracer]

Note to self, never engage Cheri1122 in a debate.

 

[Pilgrim]

Note to self, never engage Cheri1122 in a debate.

You have a point - it's usually based on emotion and fantasy, not facts. Read the above article Muttly posted for another perspective. The homosexual community is not being threatened with denial of their civil rights. Their militants are a noisy minority trying to impose their political agenda on everyone else, regardless of their rights or religious beliefs.

This is why bills like Arizona’s protecting individual Christians from lawsuits will have to return, because the left has a mission, and this is only the beginning. It was clear Mrs. Brewer had no choice but to veto the bill, considering the left had completely smeared the state in the process of its media frenzy. Add to that the fact that liberals would like nothing better in this election year than to have this be the discussion in the media instead of Obamacare and the economy. Still, it will have to be confronted eventually if we are keep tyranny from eating away at the fabric of our culture.

Ultimately, the Arizona bill had nothing to do with gays and everything to do with protecting the right of individuals to live their lives in ways that may not include others, or may even offend certain groups. As Americans, we did not go through the growing pains of the civil rights movements only to capitulate to 21st century bullies who have the gall to use the importance of minority rights as a weapon to extinguish those with whom they disagree.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...zonas-religious-freedom-bill-i/#ixzz3WFxnhc64

 

[ysracer]

You have a point - it's usually based on emotion and fantasy, not facts.

You mean the article ?



"Historian Thomas Frank linked the Times to the modern American conservative movement, saying:

There is even a daily newspaper—the Washington Times—published strictly for the movement's benefit, a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries."