News, Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers (activist, lobby)

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by jjrose

And he turned tail and reversed his decision as soon as he was confronted.
Gov. Pence signs RFRA changes into law, issues statement | Fox 59


He has some balls

I think they were effectively removed. Like my dog's.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Funny, because you can't refute it.

I already have using Alitos own words from the court decision.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

They don't have to. HL's gender discrimination wasn't even considered in the ruling. HL's First Amendment rights trumped any subsequent law(s).

Gender discrimination wasn't considered because it didn't apply. As I pointed out, the insurance policies were uniform regardless of gender.

[believe007]

Originally Posted by jjrose

And he turned tail and reversed his decision as soon as he was confronted.
Gov. Pence signs RFRA changes into law, issues statement | Fox 59


He has some balls

Yes he does.
He tried to do what others are too cowardly to do....
He's fighting a battle that most are too PC to fight at all-
So yes he's definitely got a set.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Any manner of contracts can be entered into between unmarried parties, even unmarried parties sleeping together, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Exactly. I'm not sure why Stillwater Townie would believe otherwise.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by believe007

Yes he does.
He tried to do what others are too cowardly to do....
He's fighting a battle that most are too PC to fight at all-
So yes he's definitely got a set.

Not after the "clipping" he received.

If he still had balls, he would not have changed the law.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Exactly. I'm not sure why Stillwater Townie would believe otherwise.

I know I wouldn't believe I couldn't trust anyone to agree on a contract to share a credit card with.

[FinsterRufus]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Lost what? I sure as hell hope we haven't lost our First Amendment rights.

No, they lost their fight against legal SSM. If it wasn't about that, the free religious exercisers wouldn't participate in all manner of business activities that aren't right with The Lord and never would have, consistently.

Makes a bit of a mockery of the Constitution, if you ask me.

[StillwaterTownie]

If a baker is going to worry about the sex lives of his customers as much or more than as his products, then he or she is in the wrong business.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The basis is whether the business can be compelled to PAY for something. So, irrelevant.

That's not what the ruling stated. It specifically preserved the First Amendment rights of closely held corporation owners to exercise their religion.

But, hey... keep bullying people. The homosexual guerilla activists' bullying tactics are causing many to rescind their support for homosexuals.

Chick-fil-A, Memories Pizza... how many times do guerilla activists have to get the public's distate for their bully antics shoved in their face before they get it?