The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[JTScribe]

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



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.

One nice exclamation point on that Federalist article is that the lawyer who wrote it is a conservative, gay supporter of SSM. So it's not like some knuckle-dragging hetero-normative troglodyte wrote it.

For me personally, I am more and more of two minds on the subject.

A) The bill is really a non-issue as Gabe Malor writes in the Federalist. The histrionics over it are overblown and ignorant of the actual text of the bill and the history behind it.

B) It's a huge unforced error on the part of those who passed and signed it. Right-leaning politicians have got to learn that the press is not on their side and they have to stop playing into their hands.

 

[jamil]

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.

Oh, no, no, no, no. You didn't build that. It's not your business. It's the public's business. Public accommodation or some such hooey.

 

[D-Ric902]

Oh, no, no, no, no. You didn't build that. It's not your business. It's the public's business. Public accommodation or some such hooey.

but, but, but

I pay taxes too.
so it my roads, and police, fire, and all that other stuff too.

and when did the public pay my utility bills, supplies, heat, electricity, payroll, healthcare coverage, 401K, unemployment insurance, or even for the coffee pot in the break room?

 

[cobber]

Federal judge rules that Dallas? homeless feeding ordinance violates ministries? religious freedoms | Dallas Morning News

The RFRA activists should march down to Texas next and protect those poor homeless folks being exploited by the churches.

 

[Kutnupe14]

111 Cakery was the shop in Indy.

Formerly located at 16th & Talbot.

Nice lady, tasty cupcakes, unfortunate geography.

It was on Talbot St??? Lol, what idiot starts a business that isn't gay-friendly on Talbot St? Her business was doomed to fail before she ever opened its doors.

 

[Dead Duck]

It was on Talbot St??? Lol, what idiot starts a business that isn't gay-friendly on Talbot St? Her business was doomed to fail before she ever opened its doors.

Baiting Much?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Baiting Much?

Baiting? Are you familiar with Talbot St?..... and I made you roll your eyes, lol.

 

[Bartman]

Government employee calls Christians "nazis" in regards to RFRA


Government Economist: Christians Are Nazis | The Daily Caller


Huh.

I'm one of those with the opinion that this law was not necessary in a strictly legal sense. But when I see responses like this, I completely understand why people of faith may feel the need to protect their religious freedoms. I don't deny that homosexuals are sometimes discriminated against, but today people of all faiths face the same persecution, especially in the media.


Calling Christians nazis, hicks, or rednecks only strengthens their resolve to secure their rights against those who oppose them, even if that opposition is imagined.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm one of those with the opinion that this law was not necessary in a strictly legal sense. But when I see responses like this, I completely understand why people of faith may feel the need to protect their religious freedoms. I don't deny that homosexuals are sometimes discriminated against, but today people of all faiths face the same persecution, especially in the media.


Calling Christians nazis, hicks, or rednecks only strengthens their resolve to secure their rights against those who oppose them, even if that opposition is imagined.

Further info on this, she's now taking the Anthony Wiener approach and claiming her account was "hacked"


BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Lowe0]

B) It's a huge unforced error on the part of those who passed and signed it. Right-leaning politicians have got to learn that the press is not on their side and they have to stop playing into their hands.

Wait, doesn't the Right pretty much own the most-viewed cable news network?

 

[jamil]

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.

Same is probably true with just about any long running "political discussion" thread.

It was on Talbot St??? Lol, what idiot starts a business that isn't gay-friendly on Talbot St? Her business was doomed to fail before she ever opened its doors.

One article I read about it suggested that the purpose of setting up shop there was to proselytize the heathens. Of course that article was clearly written from an activist viewpoint.

It's a fair question to ask, why would someone who opposes gays set up shop in a gay-friendly area. I don't know Indy very well, and I've never been on Talbot St (as far as I know). So I can't comment on that. But if they've been in business for awhile, it seems they've managed to build a clientele, regardless. So if that claim is true, they've still managed to stay in business until recently. Why hasn't it been a problem until now? I think the best answer to those questions is, most likely, neither side in every day living is as evil as the rabid activists say.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[D-Ric902]

It was on Talbot St??? Lol, what idiot starts a business that isn't gay-friendly on Talbot St? Her business was doomed to fail before she ever opened its doors.

How do you​ know?

 

[JTScribe]

Wait, doesn't the Right pretty much own the most-viewed cable news network?

Eh, Fox is pretty centrist IMO. They have some semi-conservative commentators but they only seem right-wing because of the competition.

 

[jamil]

Wait, doesn't the Right pretty much own the most-viewed cable news network?

First that's cable news which vies for hundreds of thousands to single-digit millions of viewers. Network news is an order of magnitude above that.

Of the cable news networks, FOX News is the most watch. But ideologically, if you separated statistics by ideology, the lone conservative leaning news organization is eclipsed in viewership by left-leaning media.

Alltogether, NBC,CBS,ABC + CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, Al Jezeera America, etc., are all center-left to far left leaning. The so-called "main-stream media" favors the progressive viewpoints.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Same is probably true with just about any long running "political discussion" thread.



One article I read about it suggested that the purpose of setting up shop there was to proselytize the heathens. Of course that article was clearly written from an activist viewpoint.

It's a fair question to ask, why would someone who opposes gays set up shop in a gay-friendly area. I don't know Indy very well, and I've never been on Talbot St (as far as I know). So I can't comment on that. But if they've been in business for awhile, it seems they've managed to build a clientele, regardless. So if that claim is true, they've still managed to stay in business until recently. Why hasn't it been a problem until now? I think the best answer to those questions is, most likely, neither side in every day living is as evil as the rabid activists say.

Much ado about nothing.

It's a VERY gay area. She probably stayed in business because no one knew, but upon this happening, I can see her losing the majority of her clientele. I'd never heard of the place, so she must have been very local, and of the non-gay residents there, I'd imagine most probably didn't have an issue with that culture (or else why live there). Once she was out'd, the straights would probably stop doing business with her as well. I would if I lived in the area.

...and I better clarify, I liked the ladies.... 5'5 or shorter, nice feet, 110-125, very short or very long hair, and a ill bump in the back.

 

[JTScribe]

How do you​ know?

Dammit, man, don't tell me that Lando's gay!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Dammit, man, don't tell me that Lando's gay!

I worked at a coffee shop where Billy D's personal assistant frequented. He was there all the time, and told TONS of stories about Billy.

The assistant was flaming.

 

[Bartman]

Further info on this, she's now taking the Anthony Wiener approach and claiming her account was "hacked"


BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Kutnupe14]

How do you​ know?

I've been to in that area numerous times. Dated a girl who had a gay father, I have gay friends, and even a gay brother. I love the gheys. But there's and addendum. I support gay guys because they're not competition for the chicas. Now gay girls still kind of upset me.... however, they get a pass if they make movies, lol.

 

[chipbennett]

One article I read about it suggested that the purpose of setting up shop there was to proselytize the heathens. Of course that article was clearly written from an activist viewpoint.

If so, rather poor, self-defeating tactics were used. One does not successfully proselytize by setting up shop somewhere and then saying, "we don't serve your kind here" or otherwise claim a reason not to do business with the locals.

It's a fair question to ask, why would someone who opposes gays set up shop in a gay-friendly area. I don't know Indy very well, and I've never been on Talbot St (as far as I know). So I can't comment on that. But if they've been in business for awhile, it seems they've managed to build a clientele, regardless. So if that claim is true, they've still managed to stay in business until recently. Why hasn't it been a problem until now? I think the best answer to those questions is, most likely, neither side in every day living is as evil as the rabid activists say.

I do not know the specific details of that case, so I welcome any correction if I'm wrong. However, there is a difference between "believes X is sin" and "opposes people who are X" - and I often see the two conflated in discussions/arguments such as this one. I would even go so far as to say that the latter is NOT biblical (but won't go much farther, lest I run afoul of forum rules). I believe that most Christians are described by the former, and NOT by the latter - but all too often, others wrongly ascribe the latter, merely because someone expresses the former.

Much ado about nothing.

As will bear out in the end: absolutely much ado about nothing.