I find it amazing how the radicalized left can't take such a simple "no-brainer" issue and motivate a nation into believing it's about the GOP hating gays. The reason for the bill is to protect folks from lawsuits. Basically, if a gay couple want's to get married in a church and the church says no, they could be sued. The church can refuse to serve and that's legal, but the civil court cases can be costly. One could also order a halal caterer to serve food at the petting farm where pigs are nearby. Maybe even order spare-ribs to be served. How about ordering a cake from the halal baker with a picture of Mohammad?
Typical. . On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <[email protected]>wrote: > > we are going to see a lot more of these laws over the next 24 months. > > the Republican strategy is to pass as many "anti-religious" protection laws > as they can while they have majorities in most states. > > they believe they win if the laws are passed, and they win if the laws are > shot down. > > they are hoping that the courts will shoot many of them down, enraging > their base, and guaranteeing not just a win, but a very conservative win in > 2016. and the hope of shifting the supreme court, and the unfilled federal > judgeships further to the religious right (not just the right, but the > religious right) > > some of the ones they are shopping around various statehouses include laws > to protect businesses who fire or even demote employees for having > abortions, or using birth control, on religious grounds. > > its going to be a crazy "crazy season" for anyone still reading the news. > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Maureen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Freedom of association rights have nothing to do with businesses > > violating someone's civil rights because of religious claims. > > > > Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based > > on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, > > restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in > > interstate commerce. While sexual preference is not included, because > > the Arizona law included provisions that would allow the business > > owner to refuse service based on their religious preferences, they > > opened the door for the courts to rule against them on religious > > discrimination grounds. > > > > A better written law that allows them to discriminate solely on sexual > > preference might have passed constitutional muster but it would have > > shown the true colors of the supporters, and would likely have been > > even more wildly unpopular. > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:25 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You should not be discriminated against by the government. > > > > > > Individuals should be able to freely associate with people of their > > choice. > > > Freedom of association was important enough to make the bill of > rights. > > > Like most of these things if I have the right to choose who to spend > > time > > > with, don't I also have the right to chose who I don't want around me? > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:369528 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
