The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[miguel]

Keep up. The gay wedding cake incident was in Co. There was a similar incident in Wa state. The gay cupcake incident was in Indianapolis. For the latter incident no one sued. The business was in a very "gay friendly" area according to reports, and the clientele took care of the matter. That bakery is no longer in business. If people are going to go ape**** about a business choosing its clients, I'd prefer they do it that way instead of pursuing ways to have the might of government do it for them.

I'd post a link but it's not worth the 15 seconds to google it, click the top of many hits, copy the link, and paste it here.

111 Cakery was the shop in Indy.

Formerly located at 16th & Talbot.

Nice lady, tasty cupcakes, unfortunate geography.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I guess we need a dictionary lesson.

mil·i·tant
ˈmiləd(ə)nt/
adjective

• 1.
  combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.

 

[AA&E]

I don't know why people of conscience should have to pretend to be something they're not just to placate somebody else's sensibilities in these cases. Should we alternately be just as accepting of the line of thinking of a homosexual couple pretend not to be just so they can get waited on? No. People should not treat others unfairly or offensively but you do not have a right not to be treated so.

We need to realize there's a moral component and an inherent right component in all of these issues. Just because I have a right to discriminate doesn't necessarily mean I should. And just as you may not want somebody forcing their morality on you, let's don't force (under law) your morality on them.

People of conscience should follow everything their religion condemns, not just those they find personally distasteful. If you are going to use a religious exemption you should be expected to go all in, or not at all.

Divorcees, adulterers, those whom work on Sunday, those who do not honor their mothers and fathers, etc. Surely these sinful behaviors which were etched in stone are more condemned then one only mentioned in scripture? Which of the ten commandments condemns homosexuality?

Personally, I do not care beyond the backward assed redneckenness in which we are currently being viewed upon the world stage.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide."

Your Questions On Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill, Answered

Time to return the pitchforks to Home Depot and get on with your lives.

 

[chipbennett]

People of conscience should follow everything their religion condemns, not just those they find personally distasteful. If you are going to use a religious exemption you should be expected to go all in, or not at all.

You're essentially presenting a false dilemma: that a religious person must either be perfect and sinless, or else a complete nihilist. Absurd.

Exercising the right of free religious expression is not predicated on sinless perfection - a state that would obviate the need for religious expression in the first place.

 

[miguel]

"No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide."

Your Questions On Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill, Answered

Time to return the pitchforks to Home Depot and get on with your lives.

I've lost the receipt...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Government employee calls Christians "nazis" in regards to RFRA

Government Economist: Christians Are Nazis | The Daily Caller

Huh.

 

[MisterChester]

No, 'militant' does not refer to people just expressing their 1st amendment right. As I said, it's not literal. It's just a figure of speech. One might consider Westboro Baptist Church militant though they're not taking up arms. But pop culture is at a point where it can easily identify Westboro's 'militant' behavior while excusing LGBT and other progressive "militant" activist groups. Both radical groups want to transform society socially, and both groups employ tactics that are not above board, but neither are literally militant. And I'm not saying all LGBTs who want to transform society are 'militant' (I prefer calling them 'rabid' because it's more descriptive of their behavior).

I understand what you're saying. Being rabid about it I agree is not the way to go.

 

[MisterChester]

Government employee calls Christians "nazis" in regards to RFRA

Government Economist: Christians Are Nazis | The Daily Caller

Huh.

Yeah, because everyone against the bill agrees with this wacko. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, posting an opinion piece of some nut to paint the opposition in this light. What's the saying, opinions are like ***holes?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here...

Just sharing the news. It's what I do.

 

[AA&E]

You're essentially presenting a false dilemma: that a religious person must either be perfect and sinless, or else a complete nihilist. Absurd.

Exercising the right of free religious expression is not predicated on sinless perfection - a state that would obviate the need for religious expression in the first place.

Would a conscientious objector be allowed to avoid one war, but volunteer for a different war where he felt his religion were being persecuted? I'd think not. If we are allowing people to do what others can not based upon religious conviction they should be held to a certain standard. Or else everyone that simply wanted to avoid warfare would bow out when their nation called upon them....

 

[chipbennett]

Would a conscientious objector be allowed to avoid one war, but volunteer for a different war where he felt his religion were being persecuted? I'd think not. If we are allowing people to do what others can not based upon religious conviction they should be held to a certain standard. Or else everyone that simply wanted to avoid warfare would bow out when their nation called upon them....

Who is going to define that "standard", and who will be responsible for "holding" religious people to it?

And what are we allowing people to do, that others cannot, based upon religious conviction?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

People of conscience should follow everything their religion condemns, not just those they find personally distasteful. If you are going to use a religious exemption you should be expected to go all in, or not at all.

Divorcees, adulterers, those whom work on Sunday, those who do not honor their mothers and fathers, etc. Surely these sinful behaviors which were etched in stone are more condemned then one only mentioned in scripture? Which of the ten commandments condemns homosexuality?

Personally, I do not care beyond the backward assed redneckenness in which we are currently being viewed upon the world stage.

That all is your opinion on what YOU think people ought to do. It's amazing to me the number of people that are ok with infringement of other peoples' rights if they're not exercising them the way they think they ought to.

 

[jamil]

"No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide."

Your Questions On Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill, Answered

Time to return the pitchforks to Home Depot and get on with your lives.

I guess people just like to go ape**** over nothing. Happend with Zimmerman. Happened with Ferguson. Same here. Irresponsible rabid, militant press stirring **** up.

I've lost the receipt...

I think Walmart will take it back as long as you wipe the blood off first.

Would a conscientious objector be allowed to avoid one war, but volunteer for a different war where he felt his religion were being persecuted? I'd think not. If we are allowing people to do what others can not based upon religious conviction they should be held to a certain standard. Or else everyone that simply wanted to avoid warfare would bow out when their nation called upon them....

If you're saying that a Christian business owner who refuses service to gays is inconsistent in his gay refusing practice, then you have a point.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you're saying that a Christian business owner who refuses service to gays is inconsistent in his gay refusing practice, then you have a point.

But I loath religion, especially the Christians I know...don't get in the way of my anger and my crusade to infringe on their rights.

 

[miguel]

I think Walmart will take it back as long as you wipe the blood off first.

I don't shop at Walmart, they destroy my local economy and don't pay people a living wage. The blood is on their shovels, not mine...

 

[buckwacker]

People of conscience should follow everything their religion condemns, not just those they find personally distasteful. If you are going to use a religious exemption you should be expected to go all in, or not at all.

Divorcees, adulterers, those whom work on Sunday, those who do not honor their mothers and fathers, etc. Surely these sinful behaviors which were etched in stone are more condemned then one only mentioned in scripture? Which of the ten commandments condemns homosexuality?

Personally, I do not care beyond the backward assed redneckenness in which we are currently being viewed upon the world stage.

If the religious owner of a bakery refused to bake a cake for a swingers party we wouldn't hear a thing about it. But the lbgt folks have the backing of the liberal social fascits, thus the outrage.

 

[D-Ric902]

I have every right to be a jerk
if I don't want to make money serving someone I don't know and most likely will never see again. Then I'm an idiot and won't be in business long.

but it's my business and I pay the bills and buy the supplies so if you don't want to use my business because I have a cross hanging up front then your a jerk and have every right to not give me money to serve you.

74 pages to figure that out.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

74 pages to figure that out.

Nah we figured it out real early in the thread, but it's more fun to yell about it for a long time... or present the exact same view with different choices of verbiage.