RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone

RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 8:47:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Tsk tsk tsk,more and more folks keep getting added to your "list" [;)] I don't have a list, bozo, and Tweak would never end up on it even if I did. K.

slvemike4u -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 8:51:09 AM)
Bozo.....is that a bastardization of my nick,cause I think that's a TOS. to add to that I was responding to a post wherein you suggested tweak was getting awful close to joether....that was before you told off DC. I myself was a Marvel Comics guy.....but still and all ,I happen to like DC [:)]

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:09:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Steering this conversation back to the topic......(Hard to port!) What your stating here really does come to the heart of the fallacy in the law: How do you tell someone is gay to refuse service to them? Do they have the right to sue you civil court for damages if your wrong? Refusing to serve gays is not the topic. BULLSHIT Its the topic of the WHOLE DAMN THREAD. To quote Kirata, "Maybe you should learn reading comprehension...". If you having trouble understanding the basics of the thread, perhaps you should leave the more complicated stuff to the real adults..... quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The discussion seems to have centered on that, probably because of the now famous wedding cake brouhaha, but I think that focus is misplaced. The wedding cake issue had nothing to do with serving gays. The shop objected to playing a contributory role in the celebration of gay marriage. It would have made no difference if a heterosexual friend of the gay couple had been buying the cake for them. And there is no reason to think that the shop would have refused to serve a gay person purchasing a "traditional" cake for the wedding of heterosexual friends. Let me state it.....AGAIN.....for the religiously moronic.....(in general and not anyone in particular) If you have a business that serves the public, either your become professional or you get into the unemployment line. If some gay guy or lesbian chick wants something you sell, your selling it. If you dont want to sell it, you better come up with a REALLY GOOD EXCUSE. Particularly if they think your a bigot! Since their recording device might be out, specifically to show a civil court that your a discriminating bigot! Atheist in businesses that operate to the public regularly serve Christians. They never seem to have a problem with it. Keeping their religious viewpoints to themselves. Its called BEING PROFESSIONAL. If the Atheist whom is also gay can be professional, why cant the Christian business person do the same? There some bible verse that prevents them from being an adult? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I think the issue here is much wider. Many small townships are self-governing corporations. If the majority population of such a township professes a religion that forbids association with certain classes of people, can they pass a law against the latter owning property or residing within the corporation's boundaries? And on what basis could the government claim a compelling interest in substantially burdening such an exercise of religion? There are plenty of other places to live. Should "religious freedom" be trampled upon because obstinate people want to live where they're not wanted? Nope, they cant. Tough nuggies! That there are small townships that are devoid of Christians (or just about). Are they allowed to refuse service to Christians? Of course not! If they are not allowed to refuse service to which they offer the general public, then its just as fair the Christian can not do the same. I dont know why this is a tough concept for your to understand. This stuff is elementary to myself; maybe its because I have that college education you envy, Kirata..... The government is not forcing you to behave, but your fellow US Citizens. Last I checked, the 1st amendment is pretty clear on the establishment of concept: No one religion trumps all others. That bigotry among Christians is so high that it prevents them from using that lump three feet above their ass for something besides a paper weight! Its ironic that non-Christians are usually more tolerant and professional than Christians in Indiana. Because if such Christians were; why the need for the law? That law was passed for political points.

accublond -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:11:32 AM)
Indiania or Indiana. It's just more biblical bigotry from what is now, sadly, a flaming red state.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:18:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Bozo.....is that a bastardization of my nick,cause I think that's a TOS. [8\|] Well if you think so, I hope you'll feel free to report me. I'm sure the Mods would appreciate the laugh. K.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:21:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Refusing to serve gays is not the topic. BULLSHIT Its the topic of the WHOLE DAMN THREAD. Well no, bozo. The topic is: "Indiania can now discriminant against anyone". (see if you can guess how I know) K.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:28:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: accublond Indiania or Indiana. It's just more biblical bigotry from what is now, sadly, a flaming red state. Well then it's actually more "biblical bigotry" from what are now 20 states, plus the ACLU (presumably a Christian-right Bible-study group in your view) which supported the Federal legislation that these statutes are modeled on. K.

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:30:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 this has already been mentioned but this version adds a new twist: "Hillary Clinton is very unhappy about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act and on Thursday, she joined in the histrionics of the angry mobs who were complaining about the horrid, discriminatory law. "Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love #LGBT http://t.co/mDhpS18oEH — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 27, 2015 "But Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, pointed out that it was Hillary’s husband, then-President Clinton, who signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. "I remember when your husband signed the federal version into law. RT @HillaryClinton Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 27, 2015" There was a time that the National Rifle Association would have been in favor of good firearm laws. The Republican Party against bigotry and hate for US Citizens. And Christians whom support God's desires and wishes. Times seem to have changed with each favoring the exact opposite. Like Hillary's issue, it comes down to three things: 1 ) History 2 ) Education 3 ) Contemplation It was a different era of the United States back in 1993. This was before two terrible bombings that would rock this nation to the core. The hundreds of mass shootings at schools, military bases, and even the open public. Before awful natural disasters from hurricanes, blizzards, and earthquakes. Before the Internet. Before much of the technology and knowledge we hold today. Would Bill Clinton sign that law today were he in the White House? Good question. Most likely 'no'.

BamaD -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:34:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Steering this conversation back to the topic......(Hard to port!) What your stating here really does come to the heart of the fallacy in the law: How do you tell someone is gay to refuse service to them? Do they have the right to sue you civil court for damages if your wrong? Refusing to serve gays is not the topic. BULLSHIT Its the topic of the WHOLE DAMN THREAD. To quote Kirata, "Maybe you should learn reading comprehension...". If you having trouble understanding the basics of the thread, perhaps you should leave the more complicated stuff to the real adults..... quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The discussion seems to have centered on that, probably because of the now famous wedding cake brouhaha, but I think that focus is misplaced. The wedding cake issue had nothing to do with serving gays. The shop objected to playing a contributory role in the celebration of gay marriage. It would have made no difference if a heterosexual friend of the gay couple had been buying the cake for them. And there is no reason to think that the shop would have refused to serve a gay person purchasing a "traditional" cake for the wedding of heterosexual friends. Let me state it.....AGAIN.....for the religiously moronic.....(in general and not anyone in particular) If you have a business that serves the public, either your become professional or you get into the unemployment line. If some gay guy or lesbian chick wants something you sell, your selling it. If you dont want to sell it, you better come up with a REALLY GOOD EXCUSE. Particularly if they think your a bigot! Since their recording device might be out, specifically to show a civil court that your a discriminating bigot! Atheist in businesses that operate to the public regularly serve Christians. They never seem to have a problem with it. Keeping their religious viewpoints to themselves. Its called BEING PROFESSIONAL. If the Atheist whom is also gay can be professional, why cant the Christian business person do the same? There some bible verse that prevents them from being an adult? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I think the issue here is much wider. Many small townships are self-governing corporations. If the majority population of such a township professes a religion that forbids association with certain classes of people, can they pass a law against the latter owning property or residing within the corporation's boundaries? And on what basis could the government claim a compelling interest in substantially burdening such an exercise of religion? There are plenty of other places to live. Should "religious freedom" be trampled upon because obstinate people want to live where they're not wanted? Nope, they cant. Tough nuggies! That there are small townships that are devoid of Christians (or just about). Are they allowed to refuse service to Christians? Of course not! If they are not allowed to refuse service to which they offer the general public, then its just as fair the Christian can not do the same. I dont know why this is a tough concept for your to understand. This stuff is elementary to myself; maybe its because I have that college education you envy, Kirata..... The government is not forcing you to behave, but your fellow US Citizens. Last I checked, the 1st amendment is pretty clear on the establishment of concept: No one religion trumps all others. That bigotry among Christians is so high that it prevents them from using that lump three feet above their ass for something besides a paper weight! Its ironic that non-Christians are usually more tolerant and professional than Christians in Indiana. Because if such Christians were; why the need for the law? That law was passed for political points. If you don't want to serve a group you lose their business and the business of those people offended by the policy. Self punishing behavior.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:35:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ... plus the ACLU (presumably a Christian-right Bible-study group in your view) ... K. Through my years, here, I thought I had learned a valuable lesson, taught to me by watching the mistakes of others. You, Sir (Kirata), owe me a new monitor! Michael

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:35:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Refusing to serve gays is not the topic. BULLSHIT Its the topic of the WHOLE DAMN THREAD. Well no, bozo. The topic is: "Indiania can now discriminant against anyone". (see if you can guess how I know) You do judge books by their covers. Most mature and mentally/emotional stable adults.....READ.....within the book before making a judgement. That your trying to evade the issue is amusing, ultimately futile, but amusing none the less.

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:40:23 AM)
quote: Well you can stuff it too. No comment. quote: Earlier in the thread I thought maybe your sarcasm detector had blinked out, but now I see it's clearly broken. I did miss the sarcasm in post 107. The last two sentences seemed to be of a piece with the rest of the (nonsarcastic?) paragraph, and they sounded like something you'd say. If folks are repeatedly missing your sarcasm, it may not entirely be a "detector" problem. quote: Don't you get that the way this law is written it opens the door to such scenarios? I do. And many other scenarios as well.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:46:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I have that college education you envy, Kirata..... What you have, joether, is called a psychosis. And trust me nobody envies you. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Well you can stuff it too. No comment. quote: Earlier in the thread I thought maybe your sarcasm detector had blinked out, but now I see it's clearly broken. I did miss the sarcasm in post 107. The last two sentences seemed to be of a piece with the rest of the (nonsarcastic?) paragraph, and they sounded like something you'd say. If folks are repeatedly missing your sarcasm, it may not entirely be a "detector" problem. quote: Don't you get that the way this law is written it opens the door to such scenarios? I do. And many other scenarios as well. wasnt seeing the sarcasm either, and I am fluent in sarcasm, it failed...miserably DO we all get called bozo today??? or are you just antagonizing to cover your flubs The Topic is EXACTLY about ignorant asses refusing to serve gays.

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:54:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If you don't want to serve a group you lose their business and the business of those people offended by the policy. Self punishing behavior. So someone could put up a sign "Not serving colors here"? This nation went down that road once before. It was ugly and the price paid for that viewpoint, heavy. Hence the creation of laws that prevent someone from discriminating against someone else on the basis of a political viewpoint. Right now, rather than skin color or physical/mental/emotional disability, its the human body being discriminated against. Has this nation not learned anything? At one time it was against the law for inter-racial marriage. An that was removed because it was silly. Then these say sort of individuals ban gay marriage. When you remove the religion bullshit from the equation, what is left in the argument? Nothing. Just like with this law. You remove the religious bullshit from it, and what is left? Nothing. Perhaps these pseudo-'Christians' could learn something from recent history.....

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 9:58:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether I have that college education you envy, Kirata..... What you have, joether, is called a psychosis. And trust me nobody envies you. Really? Is that....ALL...you have for an argument? What's wrong? Not one shred of a decent argument to make? Rather a psychosis than being the very concept that is opposite of my religious beliefs! Fortunately I have enough people that can state, medically, that I'm not insane (because unlike you, they ARE medical doctors). I've even asked them.

BamaD -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 10:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If you don't want to serve a group you lose their business and the business of those people offended by the policy. Self punishing behavior. So someone could put up a sign "Not serving colors here"? This nation went down that road once before. It was ugly and the price paid for that viewpoint, heavy. Hence the creation of laws that prevent someone from discriminating against someone else on the basis of a political viewpoint. Right now, rather than skin color or physical/mental/emotional disability, its the human body being discriminated against. Has this nation not learned anything? At one time it was against the law for inter-racial marriage. An that was removed because it was silly. Then these say sort of individuals ban gay marriage. When you remove the religion bullshit from the equation, what is left in the argument? Nothing. Just like with this law. You remove the religious bullshit from it, and what is left? Nothing. Perhaps these pseudo-'Christians' could learn something from recent history..... You know that would be against the law. My point is that if they did they would quickly go out of business.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 10:06:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If folks are repeatedly missing your sarcasm, it may not entirely be a "detector" problem. Some do occasionally, but few "repeatedly," so I think it more likely to do with them than me. K.

joether -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 10:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If they did they would quickly go out of business. Hence why most states do not pass laws like Indiana did recently. Most states like to have plenty of operating businesses. They provide employment and taxes. That the 'Christian' legislation and governor doesn't understand either of these concepts should clue the populace in that 'new government' is needed ASAP. This law is tyrannical. It is evil. Its purpose severs no 'common good' for anyone but hateful people. That it can be abused very easily and used to hide from other discriminating viewpoints. The business owner and Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan didnt not refuse businesses to a black man, but to a gay person. Funny how the law doesn't explain that such a business owner has to prove the person was gay, only if they feel the person is gay. At one time bakeries did serve color people, citing religious 'reasons'. The was true with those with disabilities. Now its with gay people. Maybe we needed to add to the federal laws that disallow people from discriminating on the basis of being gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (3/28/2015 10:12:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The Topic is EXACTLY about ignorant asses refusing to serve gays. So the topic isn't the new law in Indiana? Well damn, you sure fooled me! [8D] K.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625