"Religious Freedom Bill" - Indiana boycott begins (lawyers, luxury)

[Ace_TX]

If i shoot and kill an intruder who breaks into my home and attempts to do harm to my family, i guess that makes me the same as ted bundy

the *sin* arguement is pointless

the real issue here is that those gay people who feel they can bully people into doing gay cakes, etc once again their tactics backfired on them

any person with a brain would not willfully patronize a business that does not treat them with respect

you can even take religion out of it, do people think its impossible to not love all things gay

pretty sure most people who arent into the gay lifestyle didnt form there opinion because of "the bible"

and even if the person uses the bible to give a reason for not accepting gay stuff, keep in mind its not just christians, thereare places in the world under other religion that will kill gay people

yeah, yeah i know my post is "ignorant" "hateful" etc i will save you some keystrokes

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by McdonaldIndy

I highly doubt that. Bypassing Indiana will cost you tons of gas money and extra hours on the road. It's more dangerous too.
You sure showed those poor and working class people in Indiana.
Practice what you preach.

More dangerous, lol...Illinois is no picture postcard, but I would rather go through a state that I am not scared to be in.

[censusdata]

Originally Posted by mbell75

there are certain types of people God does indeed hate and he has destroyed them several times in the past. Maybe crack open a bible.

The Bible condemns a lot of things that Jesusland Republicans never talk about because it doesn't match up with their agenda...

Gluttony / obesity - why not require people to weigh in before checking out with groceries and tell them what / how much of what they can buy?

Divorce - 3 different exceptions depending on what NT passage you like the best. Either not at all, only because of adultry, or if spouse is not a believer and consents to divorce. Do you want to not allow divorce for domestic abuse because the Bible doesn't allow it? Red states have much higher divorce rates FYI

Excessive wealthy / not sharing with poor. I could quote passages that would indicate that McMansions and luxury cars are evil.

Their agenda starts with gays and abortion but they want to control your whole life. Next it's a ban on divorce and jailing people who don't faithfully attend church. I grew up with the Christian form of ISIS and I know first hand what it's like to have the Thought Police monitor your every breath.

[Atlwarrior]

False religion that is man-made is most evil. This law is not a reflection of true Christianity and love

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by bigstick

More dangerous, lol...Illinois is no picture postcard, but I would rather go through a state that I am not scared to be in.

More protests against Georgia's "religious liberty" bill | www.wsbradio.com

Getting scared about Georgia?

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Originally Posted by mbell75

Exactly. Isn't it ironic how the LBGT community turns to bullying and shaming to get their point across? Its acceptable when THEY do it but if anyone bullies or shames them, its a civil rights violation by xenophobic bigots. Just the fact that you can have everyone and their mom come out on TV or radio and call the state of Indiana every name in the book and accuse them of bigotry but the other side isn't allowed to get on TV or radio and argue their side or the PC liberal and LBGT nuts will freak out and companies will start threatening to boycott. Pathetic.

As a gay man, I'm going to try and meet you halfway here and I challenge you to do the same. Let's see if you respond in a partisan and scapegoating manner (you know :the PC lefties blah blah bah), or if you can actually hear me out, as I'm willing to address your statements with an open mind. Because the most futile and unproductive debates are the talking heads to right of Attila the Hun (Rush Limbaugh) or to left of Magical Unicorns (lets say Howard Dean and Jane Fonda's love child). In all seriousness extremes on the left and the right are extremely flawed and hypocritical and all they know is how to scapegoat one another rather than a having a mature and productive debate. I couldn't think of anything more cumbersome than watching either Fox News or MSNBC.

With that said, don't presume to think you know what it is like being in a gay man's shoes and assuming it's a choice. All I've got is anecdotes but that doesn't make my experience as an adolescent struggling and coming to terms with being gay any less real. Yeah, I was bullied and shamed, and it sucked! But I eventually owned it, came to terms with it, and became honest with myself and everyone else and I don't feel the need to bully or shame Christians as retaliation. But the fact is you haven't any idea what your talking about when you make a judgmental comment that it's a choice. It wasn't any more of a choice than you having a choice to be heterosexual, so don't go there.

As a gay man I deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else does. But I will say America has gone loony when we need to make laws about who can be served wedding cakes. Why do we need religious freedom laws or class protection laws for bakery transactions? If somebody doesn't want to bake a cake for my wedding, I'd take my business elsewhere. I'd also make it known that some d'bag cakemaker wouldn't serve me a cake at bakery with the power social media and they can own that since that's how they choose to do business and that would be just a simple consequence. I don't need lawmakers to interfere with the baker or myself. I am 100% behind protecting the 1st amendment even if it means having to deal with right wing loonies at the Westboro Baptist Church.

To a point, I don't believe in Nanny laws, but its lawyers that have gotten to this point in America, with the media pouring gasoline on that fire. Any way this law is re-worded is going to offend somebody, there is no way either side would compromise because there will always be some extreme looney on either side of the argument that won't put their big girl panties on, grow up and move on. Being refused service at a restaurant though? Yeah that does cross a line. Cakemaker? Pfft! Where is the middle ground?

[Graywhiskers]

Well said Desert! common sense.

[just1paul]

https://www.facebook.com/indy500boycott

[mgforshort]

We have gay friends and we love them. If I could pick my neighbors, left and right and across the street from us, please let them be gay. Generally speaking they are cleaner, funnier, more open minded and interesting than most old farts like myself.

Now, the way I see it, when a baker won't make my kind of cake, I'll be glad to spend my money with another business who is happy to see me in their shop. I would never force someone to serve us if they want nothing to do with us, be it a restaurant or a doctor, as long there are alternatives, and it is not a matter of life or death.
.
The way I see it, we can't force the citizens to buy all their groceries from Walmart because citizens must have a freedom of choice. For the same reason, we can't force Walmart to feed anyone getting through the door, because Walmart too, should have a freedom of choice. It's a two-way street, whether we like it or not.

As much as we hate that law, freedom of choice is more important.

[kayanne]

Originally Posted by Desert_SW_77

As a gay man I deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else does. But I will say America has gone loony when we need to make laws about who can be served wedding cakes. Why do we need religious freedom laws or class protection laws for bakery transactions? If somebody doesn't want to bake a cake for my wedding, I'd take my business elsewhere. I'd also make it known that some d'bag cakemaker wouldn't serve me a cake at bakery with the power social media and they can own that since that's how they choose to do business and that would be just a simple consequence. I don't need lawmakers to interfere with the baker or myself. I am 100% behind protecting the 1st amendment even if it means having to deal with right wing loonies at the Westboro Baptist Church.

The problem I have with the "I'll just take my business elsewhere" argument is when I try to apply that same argument to blacks in the 1950s. Most of us can see that telling blacks back then to find a place that wants their business would not have been not a good way to deal with the problem. So I don't like thinking that way in regard to gays and wedding cakes.

Or do you feel that, because many (if not most) bakeries would make the cake, and that discrimination and hateful attitudes toward gays has greatly diminished in recent years, that a comparison to blacks in the 50s is not relevant? In other words, do you think it's easier for gays today to find a baker willing to make their wedding cake than it was for blacks in the 50s to find a restaurant that would let them in?