Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indiana legislate held a press conference this morning. Spokesperson said discrimination was not the intent of the law. It was meant as a message of inclusion and has been perceived as a message of exclusion. They will go back and take another look at the language and fix it, if necessary.
Indiana legislate held a press conference this morning. Spokesperson said discrimination was not the intent of the law. It was meant as a message of inclusion and has been perceived as a message of exclusion. They will go back and take another look at the language and fix it, if necessary.
See. The protests are working. People have the power and they do not have to give it up to the government to get things done.
How would a business owner even know whether a customer was homosexual? How could they tell? By their clothing? Their hair color?
Would an ice cream parlor server know or care what the proclivity of the person ordering the Rocky Road cone happened to be? Of course not. Their business relationship lasts four minutes, and no social or political stance came into play.
Would the owner of an event photography service be the same? We can agree not. Would a nationally known homosexual photographer be required to photograph a major White Separatist meeting? That could be tense.
Would a Steak House be required to have special entrees on the menu for Homosexuals?
A New York Strip with a special topping? This exactly what you advocate.
A baker can certainly bake a wedding cake for any client, but cannot be forced to recite the beliefs of the homosexual community. That is exactly what you want by forcing the placement of two plastic grooms on the top of the cake.
These examples require someone to be a part of the event.
To participate against their will. Against their religious beliefs.
Would a business owner need to investigate every potential customer?
What you seem to want are laws that force the business owner to not only embrace this new de rigueur behavior, but to participate in the event or function without complaint.
What you seem to want is to have the heavy hand of an armed government to threaten someone's livelihood if they don't accept the homosexual lifestyle.
Your tolerance is one-way. We know it and you know it, and that's why this aberration will never win over society.
And finally if the Left thinks they have found some weak-link by their denigration of Christian beliefs, they are crossing the line.
The Left cannot ridicule Christian beliefs out of fashion, and morality will never be legislated away.
No the steak house would not have to have a special entree, just serve anyone the entrees they already offer. Just like a baker doesn't have to carry special toppers, if the couple want some topper that they baker doesn't carry they could easily order it themselves and put it on top. The issue arises when the baker refuses to sell them ANY wedding cake because of the sexual orientation of the couple.
If a couple walks in and orders cake #11 from the catalog then they should be able to purchase cake #11 from the catalog.
No the steak house would not have to have a special entree, just serve anyone the entrees they already offer. Just like a baker doesn't have to carry special toppers, if the couple want some topper that they baker doesn't carry they could easily order it themselves and put it on top. The issue arises when the baker refuses to sell them ANY wedding cake because of the sexual orientation of the couple.
If a couple walks in and orders cake #11 from the catalog then they should be able to purchase cake #11 from the catalog.
Jim Crow laws mandated separation. A business that served whites couldn't serve blacks and vice versa.
Correct.
Jim Crow laws were state, county and municipal laws and varied place to place. In all cases, these laws required separation and dictated a racial caste system designed to keep " colored" in their place.
I think one thing that escapes people is that of a signed agreement or contracted services not just someone going into a bakery or going in to buy flowers but signing an agreement/contract in which someone, based on their religious values, is FORCED to be a part of something that is considered sinful. That business would be a part of a sinful union.
Homosexuals tend toward paranoia which is part of the mental health issues which got homosexuality to be considered a mental illness. They now think everything singles them out. I know that must be difficult to live with such paranoia but I think many of us are getting tired of them trying to make everything about themselves. Whatever they force others to do with the laws, it doesn't change the Biblical law and society will never accept them as normal so perhaps they need to find another way to deal with their paranoia.
If a group refuses to be tolerant of the beliefs of others, how do they expect to ever be given the same.
My brother who follows this closely since he lives in the area said that homosexuals have a list of businesses they are going to target in South Bend with the hopes of putting them out of business. He said you don't see that in the mass media and, no, you don't. Now, what if I had a list of businesses ran by homosexuals and I announced I was going to try to put them out of business? That would be wrong according to the rules of the agenda. Trying to take God away in the name of the "agenda"? I don't see it happening. The more militant a group becomes, the more people get fed up.
Boycotting businesses? Having a list of businesses that don't discriminate? What is wrong with either of those? Did you realize that NOM, and FRC both have boycott lists of businesses that have sexual orientation protections? That FRC went after nabisco for an AD with a oreo that had rainbow colored filling, or that they went after JC Penneys for having Ellen in their ads?
Indiana legislate held a press conference this morning. Spokesperson said discrimination was not the intent of the law. It was meant as a message of inclusion and has been perceived as a message of exclusion. They will go back and take another look at the language and fix it, if necessary.
"I support religious liberty, and I support this law," Pence said in an interview with The Indianapolis Star. "But we are in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend to see if there's a way to clarify the intent of the law."
Indiana legislate held a press conference this morning. Spokesperson said discrimination was not the intent of the law. It was meant as a message of inclusion and has been perceived as a message of exclusion. They will go back and take another look at the language and fix it, if necessary.
All they need to do is adopt a non-discrimination amendment, like this one:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
