The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[Dead Duck]

Just remember, the definition of bigot is anyone that disagrees with a liberal.

It's so hard to keep up because last week I was a racist for doing that exact same thing. I really don't mind being a bigot also.

 

[miguel]

Our governor would do better to stand up rather than waffle. The best thing WE ALL can do for this is quit giving them fuel and shut up. It's the law...........Next subject?

Maybe give a little reminder to the libs that every time they start acting up like this, we gain more and more seats in the legislature.

Ah, the old "elections have consequences" ploy...

 

[IndyGal65]

Blog: Exec who mocked Chick-Fil-A now on food stamps[/url]

Could just be a guy trolling. Just sayin.

Seriously, that guy is a complete tool.

 

[cobber]

Here are the email addys of Nuvo's staff: Staff | NUVO News | Indianapolis, IN

I wonder how NUVO would react if folks started contacting their advertisers indicating they won't do business there given the paper's attempt to blacklist folks and institute a boycott.

Bet NUVO needs their advertisers more than the other way around...

 

[MisterChester]

I can only guess that you're not paying attention, if you claim ignorance of the existence of militant LGBT. It is absolutely not an exaggeration. (And I intentionally used the adjective "militant" in order to differentiate from the vast majority who are live-and-let-live types, just like the vast majority of heterosexuals.)

I must be living under a rock then. Somehow I've missed the roving band of armed gay banditos that everyone here seems to be worried about.

 

[miguel]

I must be living under a rock then. Somehow I've missed the roving band of armed gay banditos that everyone here seems to be worried about.

Note sure they were "armed" in the 2A sense, but they certainly were lawyered up in this case: Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit | Fox News

And there's this one: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/

UK, too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aker-sued-refusal-make-gay-marriage-cake.html

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I must be living under a rock then. Somehow I've missed the roving band of armed gay banditos that everyone here seems to be worried about.

I'm not so sure Chip meant they're carrying around AR's and shooting people in the streets but they're certainly adept at the on-line warfare and they not ashamed to put ammo out there for their "warriors" to use.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...reedom-restoration-thread-16.html#post5761273

 

[JeffINGunner]

Marriage pre-dates Christianity btw. Sorry to burst that bubble on you. Christianity doesn't "own" the term marriage so go find another one.

OH really now then, well then tell me what text specifically uses the term Marriage that pre-dates the bible?

 

[JollyMon]

OH really now then, well then tell me what text specifically uses the term Marriage that pre-dates the bible?

One for example....

The Avalon Project : Laws of the Kings, 753 - 510 B.C.

 

[D-Ric902]

OH really now then, well then tell me what text specifically uses the term Marriage that pre-dates the bible?

see, he didn't say predate the Bible. But Christianity
now you can be ridiculed for equating Old Testament with New Testament Christianity.
Old Testament references to wifes and husbands are Jewish and predate Medern Christianity.

The reference above predates modern Christianity but not the Bible

No one can argue that marriage is not a religious institution. Always has been and always will be.

The argument they use applies to benefits granted by the government for married couples. But if you grant all the same benefits to a civil union couple, they still don't want to accept that.
If a couple are living together, man and woman, could they apply for a Civil Union designation? If yes then the LBGT community throws a fit and claims discrimination.

On what basis..........none, you hateful, homophobic, intolerant, fundamentalist, bigot.

see how that works

 

[jamil]

I was more so referring to LGBT rights as marriage + protected class status. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

I however do not see how they are militant, dictating other beliefs, etc. That is an exaggeration and you know it.

Rights as a protected class? WTF does that even mean? One good thing about it. If we keep adding protected classes eventually everyone will be a protected class, so therefore no one will be. Sheesh.

Also, I understand what he means by militant. And there are militant LGBT in that context. It doesn't mean that they're literally taking up arms against their opponents. He's referring to overly pragmatic activists that aggressively push the envelope of ethical behavior to achieve their goals.

 

[mrjarrell]

Indiana?s RIFRA: The Law is Complicated, But the Anti-Gay Politics Are Not | ACS

 

[D-Ric902]

Indiana?s RIFRA: The Law is Complicated, But the Anti-Gay Politics Are Not | ACS

See, just like I said

 

[Dead Duck]

Indiana?s RIFRA: The Law is Complicated, But the Anti-Gay Politics Are Not | ACS

Would you get off your gay horse already. This is not an Anti-Gay Bill.

 

[jamil]

Indiana?s RIFRA: The Law is Complicated, But the Anti-Gay Politics Are Not | ACS

So basically what it's saying is two things: This law, contrary to what we've been told, does not create a new class of people, but republicans are icky anyway.

 

[JeffINGunner]

One for example....

The Avalon Project : Laws of the Kings, 753 - 510 B.C.

Well since the FIRST mention of Marriage in in Genesis 29:26 and Genesis was written around 1400 BC Pre-dating your Avalon Project by almost 800 years, please try again. Oh and another thing for you to peruse:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[h=2][/h]

 

[MisterChester]

Rights as a protected class? WTF does that even mean? One good thing about it. If we keep adding protected classes eventually everyone will be a protected class, so therefore no one will be. Sheesh.

Also, I understand what he means by militant. And there are militant LGBT in that context. It doesn't mean that they're literally taking up arms against their opponents. He's referring to overly pragmatic activists that aggressively push the envelope of ethical behavior to achieve their goals.

The same way the government or a business can't discriminate based on race, sex, age, religion.

Context is one thing, but I wouldn't call them militant. ISIS warriors are militants. These are people expressing their 1st amendment right. Most of them, anyway. I can't say that I've seen LGBT activists who push the ethical envelope to a point where they're labeled militant, but I'm sure it's happened at one point or another. Every group has their crazies I suppose.

 

[MisterChester]

Well since the FIRST mention of Marriage in in Genesis 29:26 and Genesis was written around 1400 BC Pre-dating your Avalon Project by almost 800 years, please try again. Oh and another thing for you to peruse:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

do u even read forum rules bro

 

[Lowe0]

Oh and another thing for you to peruse:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Yeah, but that proposal is already being discussed in another thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...lifornia-sodomite-suppression-initiative.html

 

[bwframe]

So basically what it's saying is two things: This law, contrary to what we've been told, does not create a new class of people, but republicans are icky anyway.

Kinda the same as the scientific proof that climate change exists. Proof based on the opinions of those with a financial interest in it existing.