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.
Clearly you're not inclined to actually allow yourself to understand what my comments "amount to", since you won't even address them and instead just blind yourself to what I've said. You seem pretty well intent on denying and ignoring anything that challenges the claims of the right-wing echo chamber.
The right wing echo chamber ? We all know where that phrase comes from: arrogant, self-righteous lefties who can't believe anyone can independently disagree with them.
Let's go back the post I responded to:
"Then all they are doing is using their bible to discriminate, to spread their hate. That is all that these bills do, allow religious people to discriminate."
That is a generalization about RFRAs, not a mere critique of wording in the Indiana bill.
Neither that poster nor you will admit that the existing fed and state laws haven't been used to discriminate or spread hate.
Yes the right wing echo chamber. All manner of ridiculous rationalizations for offensive nonsense gets bounced back and forth so much among those right wingers who would rationalize the transgressions they support that they start thinking that it is something other than what it is: Lame excuse for doing wrong.
Exactly, and I'm not sure how so many on the left are missing that point.
So the Supreme Court proved how intolerant it was of religion when during the 1960s it refused to allow a restaurant operator use religious principles to discriminate against Blacks?
Yes the right wing echo chamber. All manner of ridiculous rationalizations for offensive nonsense gets bounced back and forth so much among those right wingers who would rationalize the transgressions they support that they start thinking that it is something other than what it is: Lame excuse for doing wrong.
It probably has to do with the people on the right finding gay sex acts to be much more grossly repugnant than judged so by the people on the left.
So the Supreme Court proved how intolerant it was of religion when during the 1960s it refused to allow a restaurant operator use religious principles to discriminate against Blacks?
In a much more recent case (Hobby Lobby), SCOTUS allows closely held corporations to stand by their religious convictions and decline to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives/abortifacients despite being mandated to provide such by the ACA, so there you go...
It probably has to do with the people on the right finding gay sex acts to be much more grossly repugnant than judged so by the people on the left.
Or how harboring repressed attraction to such acts drives them to overreact to such situations. Most likely, a combination of the two. Regardless, the inability or unwillingness of right wingers to "play well with others" isn't an excuse for their acting out against others.
In a much more recent case (Hobby Lobby), SCOTUS allows closely held corporations to stand by their religious convictions and decline to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives/abortifacients despite being mandated to provide such by the ACA, so there you go...
In other words, people who want to discriminate against Blacks for religious reasons need to make a federal case out of it now that RFA may be on their side, which wasn't the case during the 1960s.
It isn't unreasonable to raise that possibility - that what religious reactionaries are attempting is not just to arrest society's progress toward eliminating still more instances of institutionalized injustice, but to actually roll back the gains in justice achieved over the past hundred years. We can see indications of what the religious reactionary movement may have in mind in the perspectives of its more extreme agents, people who unabashedly state that things were better when women worked in the home, when poor people were kept from voting, etc.
So the Supreme Court proved how intolerant it was of religion when during the 1960s it refused to allow a restaurant operator use religious principles to discriminate against Blacks?
Really ? Which SC case ruled it was unconstitutional for a restaurant owner to discriminate against blacks ?
Maybe you're thinking of cases that ruled it was constitutional for Congress to pass laws banning discrimination.
You and a bunch of others seem to not know the difference between actions that are unconstitutional vs. actions that break a law passed by a government.
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.
