I wasnt aware indiana was a hostile place for the gays before this law was passed. if the gays Want to get married they can by law in most places now. The gays should exhibit some more tolerance and accept that some people willl give them their shirt off their back if they were in need but why force the gay wedding festivities on some folks who are not comfortable.
I wasnt aware indiana was a hostile place for the gays before this law was passed. if the gays Want to get married they can by law in most places now. The gays should exhibit some more tolerance and accept that some people willl give them their shirt off their back if they were in need but why force the gay wedding festivities on some folks who are not comfortable.
They shouldn't be forced, IMO. But they are complete p*ssies for lying about their motives. If they serve pepperoni pizza, they are violating Christian values.
The people giving this pizza parlor money are hate filled bigots who want the country to walk in lock step with their beliefs. They are dangerous. They have no right to impose their beliefs on others
Actually you have it back wards it is the left that want's you to walk in lock step with their beliefs or they call you names. If you believe a marriage is between a man and women and you don't want to be involved in a homosexual marriage ceremony why should you be forced to?
The real issue for me is the comlete and utter horsesh*t excuse that their decision is based on their so-called religion. If you are going to cite your religion as the excuse, then you better not be violating any other Christian value...
That is utter nonsense , everybody is a sinner that is what this day if none other is about. It's good Friday , Jesus died for all our sins . If sinners couldn't speak then the world would be silent.
This is the most overblown story ever. It was a stupid answer to a stupid question
http://wishtv.com/2015/04/03/wilcos-indy-show-back-on-after-pence-signs-rfra-clarification-bill/
Wilco’s Indy show back on after Pence signs RFRA Clarification Bill
By Staff Reports
Published: April 3, 2015, 12:55 pm
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Chicago-based rock group Wilco will perform in Indianapolis this spring after announcing earlier this week they were canceling their May concert in response to Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Actually you have it back wards it is the left that want's you to walk in lock step with their beliefs or they call you names. If you believe a marriage is between a man and women and you don't want to be involved in a homosexual marriage ceremony why should you be forced to?
Nobody is forcing you to be involved in the marriage ceremony. The merchant says, "I'm a baker. I make wedding cakes to sell to people having weddings."
You know what... this is stupid. Gloucester you obviously want to live in a world without diversity. You don't want to "mix" with people if they aren't just like you. I think that is small minded, cowardly, hateful, and certainly not Christian. Have a good Friday!
I think Jesus would be disgusted by your beliefs.
I wasnt aware indiana was a hostile place for the gays before this law was passed. if the gays Want to get married they can by law in most places now. The gays should exhibit some more tolerance and accept that some people willl give them their shirt off their back if they were in need but why force the gay wedding festivities on some folks who are not comfortable.
They shouldn't be forced, IMO.
Then what's the problem? That's what the whole case boils down to. The Christian side of the argument (and those supporting them) don't agree with the force involved.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasnt aware indiana was a hostile place for the gays before this law was passed. if the gays Want to get married they can by law in most places now. The gays should exhibit some more tolerance and accept that some people willl give them their shirt off their back if they were in need but why force the gay wedding festivities on some folks who are not comfortable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------They shouldn't be forced, IMO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Then what's the problem? That's what the whole case boils down to. The Christian side of the argument (and those supporting them) don't agree with the force involved.
I've come around on the topic, only because I cannot support any government imposed fine or arrest of an individual if it involves a religious ceremony, like a wedding. I agree that would be government overreach. If they refused to serve pizza to anyone that comes in their store, then I would support a huge fine against them. But since it's about participating in a religious ceremony, we as a government cannot fine or arrest someone for that, as dispicaable as those people are to me.
To answer your question, as I wrote earlier, my problem is the weak and dishonest citation of their motives - hiding behind religion. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with bigotry. People should have the courage of their convictions and just say they don't support gay rights because gays are gross. If this was about their faith, then they wouldn't serve pepperoni on their pizzas.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real issue for me is the comlete and utter horsesh*t excuse that their decision is based on their so-called religion. If you are going to cite your religion as the excuse, then you better not be violating any other Christian value...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That is utter nonsense , everybody is a sinner that is what this day if none other is about.
Yes, we Christians do sin every day, but some Christians don't sin when it comes to homosexuality!!!! Gee, I wonder what makes them so disciplined for this one particular sin.....what could it be?
[Edited on 4/3/2015 by BoytonBrother]
Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in gay wedding festivities.
You have people in business. Baking a cake is not participating in the celebration. It is doing what you have decided to do.
The Christian side of the argument? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!
Real F*#$%^g Christian.
You got it.
BillyBlastoff, I agree with you 100%, and people like the pizzeria owners disgust me. But what is the solution? To fine them?
I've come around on the topic, only because I cannot support any government imposed fine or arrest of an individual if it involves a religious ceremony, like a wedding.
Fair enough and I agree, but the Indiana law was much more about recourse of lawsuits than anything else.
IMO, what this actually boils down to is the matter of protected class.
The protected classes by Federal law are:
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin
Age
Sex
Pregnancy
Citizenship
Familial Status
Disability Status
Veteran Status
Genetic Information
So...should Sexual Preference be added to that list?
BillyBlastoff, I agree with you 100%, and people like the pizzeria owners disgust me. But what is the solution? To fine them?
Everything is finally cured by time. 
Last WSJ poll on the matter, 59% of Americans across all age groups supported same-sex marriage, but the 18-35s? 74%. Seventy-four percent. I know quite a few people under 30. I can honestly say I don't know a one of them that care one way or the other, many have no idea why being gay is such a big deal to begin with.
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" Co-authored by Democratic Senators Kennedy & Schumer and signed into Law by Democratic President Bill Clinton makes for some pretty interesting reading and research. Check into the State of Illinois' enactment of a similar bill and just who in their State Senate voted for it.
BillyBlastoff, I agree with you 100%, and people like the pizzeria owners disgust me. But what is the solution? To fine them?
Don't buy their fucking pizzas.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've come around on the topic, only because I cannot support any government imposed fine or arrest of an individual if it involves a religious ceremony, like a wedding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fair enough and I agree, but the Indiana law was much more about recourse of lawsuits than anything else.
IMO, what this actually boils down to is the matter of protected class.
The protected classes by Federal law are:
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin
Age
Sex
Pregnancy
Citizenship
Familial Status
Disability Status
Veteran Status
Genetic InformationSo...should Sexual Preference be added to that list?
Argh!! Damn you Bhawk, now I have to flip-flop for a 2nd time back to my original objection to the law. LOL. Of course it has to be on that list. The question remains then, what happens if it is added the list, but the pizzeria still decides to refuse to cater the gay wedding. What is the punishment under the law?
Everything is finally cured by time.
A Come and Go reference, one of my favorites! Favorite version is Gregg's acoustic in the studio on Brothers of the Road DVD. Ok, back to topic....
[Edited on 4/3/2015 by BoytonBrother]
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" Co-authored by Democratic Senators Kennedy & Schumer and signed into Law by Democratic President Bill Clinton makes for some pretty interesting reading and research. Check into the State of Illinois' enactment of a similar bill and just who in their State Senate voted for it.
The version of the Indiana bill that was first passed and then amended had significant differences between all of the other bills of that type, including the 1993 Federal bill. The Illinois bill had specific wording preventing discrimination by sexual orientation, the Indiana bill did not. However, it does now.
The question remains then, what happens if it is added the list, but the pizzeria still decides to refuse to cater the gay wedding. What is the punishment under the law?
Well, currently, violations of civil rights are reported depending upon the situation and the jurisdiction of whatever government agency oversees that particular area. I would guess and as far as my Google flies that in that situation, that would fall under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, nightclubs and theaters. Title II is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Usually the DOJ files a suit against the offending business and the recourse/penalty is fines, mandatory civil rights training or change of business practice, etc.
Here's a list of current civil rights cases the DOJ is involved in: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/whatnew.php
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" Co-authored by Democratic Senators Kennedy & Schumer and signed into Law by Democratic President Bill Clinton makes for some pretty interesting reading and research. Check into the State of Illinois' enactment of a similar bill and just who in their State Senate voted for it.
The version of the Indiana bill that was first passed and then amended had significant differences between all of the other bills of that type, including the 1993 Federal bill. The Illinois bill had specific wording preventing discrimination by sexual orientation, the Indiana bill did not. However, it does now.
Bhawk beat me to it. Not to mention that these issues were viewed very differently in 1993. For example, the possibly of this ever being true would have been scorned by most at the time...
Last WSJ poll on the matter, 59% of Americans across all age groups supported same-sex marriage, but the 18-35s? 74%. Seventy-four percent. I know quite a few people under 30. I can honestly say I don't know a one of them that care one way or the other, many have no idea why being gay is such a big deal to begin with.
My hunch is that in the not-too-distant future the interview with the person from the pizzeria that everyone has been using as an example will be looked at in much the same way we now look at as some of the footage of racially charged interviews from the sixties of whites talking about blacks.
Nobody is forcing you to be involved in the marriage ceremony. The merchant says, "I'm a baker. I make wedding cakes to sell to people having weddings."
You know what... this is stupid. Gloucester you obviously want to live in a world without diversity. You don't want to "mix" with people if they aren't just like you. I think that is small minded, cowardly, hateful, and certainly not Christian. Have a good Friday!
I think Jesus would be disgusted by your beliefs.
And what beliefs are those?
Who said I wouldn't bake them a cake?
If someone who is a Christian and thinks homosexuality is a sin and they don't want to be involved with what they perceive as sin(gay marriage) according to THEIR beliefs .
THEY don't have that right to live THEIR lives as THEY see fit?
They don't have a right to practice what THEY believe? So that is hateful?
You are the hateful one, you are the one that doesn't want a world of diversity
You are the one that call people names when they happen to have a different opinion then yours
You know what is not Christian - Giving false testimony
You do that with everyone you don't agree with
Scott walker, ted Cruz , the pizza guy in Indiana or whoever doesn't agree with your belief system. They become whacko's and monsters of hate because they may belief something you don't
The Pizza guy isn't the one throwing the stones , it is the one's that won't let them live their life according to their values
As far as I am concerned government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage it is a personal religious issue
Separation of church and state should let people live life according to what they believe and that should absolutely give the right to someone who believes gay marriage is wrong to not have anything to do with that
And what ever happened to Freedom of Association?
And what ever happened to Freedom of Association?
I give up. What?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question remains then, what happens if it is added the list, but the pizzeria still decides to refuse to cater the gay wedding. What is the punishment under the law?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, currently, violations of civil rights are reported depending upon the situation and the jurisdiction of whatever government agency oversees that particular area. I would guess and as far as my Google flies that in that situation, that would fall under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, nightclubs and theaters. Title II is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Usually the DOJ files a suit against the offending business and the recourse/penalty is fines, mandatory civil rights training or change of business practice, etc.
Here's a list of current civil rights cases the DOJ is involved in: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/whatnew.php/blockquote >
Very interesting.
The Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin, but nobody was asking the pizzeria to perform a homosexual act. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is a sin to associate or work with homosexuals. Therefore, it is not against Christianity to cater a gay wedding. Therefore, it is a 100% discrimination. So yes, a fine is appropriate for punitive and compensatory damages. Pretend like my first flip-flop never happened - it was based on ingorance of how the law works, lol.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question remains then, what happens if it is added the list, but the pizzeria still decides to refuse to cater the gay wedding. What is the punishment under the law?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, currently, violations of civil rights are reported depending upon the situation and the jurisdiction of whatever government agency oversees that particular area. I would guess and as far as my Google flies that in that situation, that would fall under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, nightclubs and theaters. Title II is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Usually the DOJ files a suit against the offending business and the recourse/penalty is fines, mandatory civil rights training or change of business practice, etc.
Here's a list of current civil rights cases the DOJ is involved in: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/whatnew.php/blockquote >
Very interesting.
The Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin, but nobody was asking the pizzeria to perform a homosexual act. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is a sin to associate or work with homosexuals. Therefore, it is not against Christianity to cater a gay wedding. Therefore, it is a 100% discrimination. So yes, a fine is appropriate for punitive and compensatory damages. Pretend like my first flip-flop never happened - it was based on ingorance of how the law works, lol.
I'm guessing that if orientation was added as a protected class, then any discrimination would simply go from overt to covert. "I cannot bake a cake for you as it would violate my religious beliefs" would simply become "We're already booked that weekend." In which case, discrimination would be hard to prove.
that was my next comment too. it's very easy to get around this.
quote:
BillyBlastoff, I agree with you 100%, and people like the pizzeria owners disgust me. But what is the solution? To fine them?Don't buy their **** ing pizzas.
I thought the original Indiana law made it legal for the services to be refused. No? That is certainly not the answer.
What is the penalty now for refusing to serve black people at a lunch counter? Is that even happening? Perhaps the reason why it isn't happening is because bigots at lunch counters know they have to serve everyone.
I thought the original Indiana law made it legal for the services to be refused. No?
No. Technically discrimination by sexual orientation is "legal" in states where orientation is not a protected class. The original law basically made it a lot easier to defend yourself by claiming religious belief if you were sued by someone, therefore introducing a "third party" to the situation. All the other laws had kept the balance as "two party."
What is the penalty now for refusing to serve black people at a lunch counter?
The DOJ, if they can prove it, can sue the hell out of the owner of the lunch counter for monetary compensation.
Criminal charges are only brought if the discrimination in question is accompanied by force, threats or intimidation.
The DOJ has a very nice website, I'm finding...:P
[Edited on 4/3/2015 by Bhawk]
Nobody is forcing you to be involved in the marriage ceremony. The merchant says, "I'm a baker. I make wedding cakes to sell to people having weddings."
You know what... this is stupid. Gloucester you obviously want to live in a world without diversity. You don't want to "mix" with people if they aren't just like you. I think that is small minded, cowardly, hateful, and certainly not Christian. Have a good Friday!
I think Jesus would be disgusted by your beliefs.
And what beliefs are those?
Who said I wouldn't bake them a cake?
If someone who is a Christian and thinks homosexuality is a sin and they don't want to be involved with what they perceive as sin(gay marriage) according to THEIR beliefs .
THEY don't have that right to live THEIR lives as THEY see fit?They don't have a right to practice what THEY believe? So that is hateful?
You are the hateful one, you are the one that doesn't want a world of diversity
You are the one that call people names when they happen to have a different opinion then yours
You know what is not Christian - Giving false testimony
You do that with everyone you don't agree with
Scott walker, ted Cruz , the pizza guy in Indiana or whoever doesn't agree with your belief system. They become whacko's and monsters of hate because they may belief something you don't
The Pizza guy isn't the one throwing the stones , it is the one's that won't let them live their life according to their valuesAs far as I am concerned government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage it is a personal religious issue
Separation of church and state should let people live life according to what they believe and that should absolutely give the right to someone who believes gay marriage is wrong to not have anything to do with that
And what ever happened to Freedom of Association?
The beliefs I speak of are the ones you hold that it should be legal to discriminate against a group of people because they think, act, or look different than you think, act, or look.
If someone who is a Christian and thinks homosexuality is a sin and they don't want to be involved with what they perceive as sin(gay marriage) according to THEIR beliefs .
THEY don't have that right to live THEIR lives as THEY see fit?
Nobody is forcing these bigoted Christians to marry gay people or engage in homosexual sex. If these same Christians believed whites shouldn't marry blacks should they be allowed to not cater those weddings as well?
Nobody - absolutely nobody has told these bigoted alleged Christians that they can't be Christians.
The Pizza guy isn't the one throwing the stones , it is the one's that won't let them live their life according to their values
Isn't one of the Pizza guy's life values selling pizza?
As far as I am concerned government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage it is a personal religious issue
Separation of church and state should let people live life according to what they believe and that should absolutely give the right to someone who believes gay marriage is wrong to not have anything to do with that
But the far right wants laws passed to make homosexual marriage illegal. Again - nobody is telling you to you have to marry a gay person. Nobody is telling homophobic bakers they have to take part in gay marriage ceremonies. This is about not being able to discriminate to who you sell your cakes.
The pizza guy is one hundred per cent throwing stones.
You obviously have your own personal Jesus. What you are advocating is not what the words of Jesus (that I've read) advocate.
The Indiana bill was not modeled after the '93 Federal law, nor did it bear any resemblance whatsoever. The entire Indiana bill had to be overhauled during the re-write. That should explain the outrage earlier in the week.
quote:
I thought the original Indiana law made it legal for the services to be refused. No?No. Technically discrimination by sexual orientation is "legal" in states where orientation is not a protected class. The original law basically made it a lot easier to defend yourself by claiming religious belief if you were sued by someone, therefore introducing a "third party" to the situation. All the other laws had kept the balance as "two party."
quote:
What is the penalty now for refusing to serve black people at a lunch counter?The DOJ, if they can prove it, can sue the hell out of the owner of the lunch counter for monetary compensation.
Criminal charges are only brought if the discrimination in question is accompanied by force, threats or intimidation.
The DOJ has a very nice website, I'm finding...
[Edited on 4/3/2015 by Bhawk]
Thank you.
I've had enough. It looks like the right sorts of things are happening. The law is being revised. Enough people spoke up to show that the world is changing. For the bigots who want to hold on to their homophobic beliefs - well everything is cured by time.
In my life I've seen amazing changes in America. May we keep progressing.
Putting a NO GAYS OR BLACKS ALLOWED in the store window would be repulsive.
The owner plainly stated he was more than glad to serve any customer whatsoever all day long (and they have), but draws the line at being forced to participate in a ceremony. (the hypothetical question was posed as a gay wedding catering scenario)
The ability to make that decision, and not be FORCED by the government making it for him......
That's Freedom.
(and it sells big)
Alloak you are a making a distinction where one does not exist. Refusing service because of sexual preference is discriminatory.
That ain't freedom. It ain't Christian. It is reprehensible. Calling it freedom is disgusting.
1. I'm not the one that's made the distinction. The pizza shop owner did. If it's me, I cater as many gay weddings I can get my hands on and pocket the money. Mama didn't raise no fool.
2. What's reprehensible and disgusting is the reaction to his decision IMO. The gay community has fought for years not to be ridiculed and bullied, to he accepted and respected as people even though they were "different." (as well they should have) Ironically, it looks like they've become exactly what they fought all those years against.
Again, calling people bigots and making death threats and other various threats is NOT the way to win folks over to your side and think like you do.
Re: Point 1. Either you see it as discrimination or you don't. Oh yeah...you say you'd cater a gay wedding, but on the other hand you've been "the proxy" on this site through all these posts for the pizza shop.
The Governator weighs in:
If the Republican Party wants the next generation of voters to listen to our ideas and solutions to real problems, we must be an inclusive and open party, not a party of divisions. We must be the party of limited government, not the party that legislates love. We must be the party that stands for equality and against discrimination in any form.
Please read my column in the Washington Post:
Schwarzenegger: Indiana’s religious freedom law is bad for Republicans
I became a proud Republican before I even understood English.
I immigrated to the United States in the heat of the 1968 presidential campaign, when the choice — as I heard it through a friend’s translation — was simple. Hubert Humphrey, with his talk of government programs, sounded too much like an Austrian politician. Richard Nixon talked about freedom, getting the government off our backs and giving the people room to grow. I was hooked.
The moment I became a citizen in 1983, I registered Republican, and I’ve never thought about checking any other box. I am proud to be a member of the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. From the Civil War to the Cold War, their moral vision led this nation to our greatest triumphs.
As an American, I’m incredibly concerned about what happened in Indiana this week and the threat of similar laws being passed in other states. As a Republican, I’m furious.
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, spoke to all Americans earlier this week about this issue, and he should be applauded.
Now I’d like to speak to some of my fellow Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans who are sensible and driven to solve problems for America. They believe in Reagan’s vision of a big tent where everyone is welcome. This message isn’t for them.
It is for Republicans who choose the politics of division over policies that improve the lives of all of us. It is for Republicans who have decided to neglect the next generation of voters. It is for Republicans who are fighting for laws that fly in the face of equality and freedom.
If we want our party to grow and last, we must be focused on real solutions to problems Americans are facing.
We could start with infrastructure. Traffic costs our drivers over $100 billion annually. Airport delays cost another $22 billion. Or we could get to work on education. If graduation rates don’t increase, we will have a shortage of 5 million workers by 2020 — not because we lack the manpower, but because the jobs will require education that our students aren’t receiving. We could clean up our air: MIT researchers found that pollution kills more than 200,000 Americans every year — more than traffic accidents, homicides, suicides and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. There are so many real problems that need solving.
But distracting, divisive laws like the one Indiana initially passed aren’t just bad for the country, they’re also bad for our party.
In California, the GOP has seen the danger of focusing on the wrong issues. In 2007, Republicans made up nearly 35 percent of our registered voters. By 2009, our share dropped to 31 percent, and today, it is a measly 28 percent. That sharp drop started just after the divisive battle over Proposition 8. Maybe that’s a coincidence, but there is no question that our party is losing touch with our voters, especially with the younger ones who are growing the registration rolls.
I know what you’re thinking: “You Californians are eccentric. My state is different. That’s not going to happen here.”
You’re wrong. All you have to do is look at the response to Indiana’s law on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or pretty much wherever young people congregate and discuss what is important to them.
Both sides of the Indiana debate used Twitter to voice their support, and the result couldn’t be clearer. According to Zignal Labs, as of Wednesday night, #StandWithIndiana had been tweeted 5,571 times. Meanwhile, #BoycottIndiana was tweeted 430,728 times.
Take a quick look at Reddit’s r/news top stories for the week — there have been more than 15,000 comments on this issue, overwhelmingly in opposition to the Indiana law.
Polls show that laws like this are not supported by independents, women, minorities or Americans between 18 and 29. Nor are they supported by big business, as evidenced by NASCAR, the NBA and Wal-Mart’s public, vocal opposition.
Those businesses are doing the right thing, but they have also done the math. As a party, we need to take a similarly realistic look. Indiana’s politicians clearly didn’t expect the response the law received, but it is heartening to see that they’ve taken steps in the right direction, just as it is reassuring to see that Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas listened to the outrage over Indiana and decided to veto a similar law. But I want to be absolutely certain that all of my fellow Republicans everywhere got the message. What happened in Indiana should be a teachable moment for us.
If the Republican Party wants the next generation of voters to listen to our ideas and solutions to real problems, we must be an inclusive and open party, not a party of divisions. We must be the party of limited government, not the party that legislates love. We must be the party that stands for equality and against discrimination in any form.
We must be the party that originally attracted this young Austrian immigrant.
