indiana

[schuylaar]

Yes religiuos freedom in concept is a good thing , in pratice its used as a weapon by organized religion , the same organized religion that enjoys freedoms over & above regular citizens .

you sir, are correct!

where's my religious freedom? i want the freedom to not choose religion..how is it religious freedom for the atheist? one of the things about religious freedom is you can check the box that says catholic, protestant, jew or "none" and still are part of society.

so now people are going to exercise their religious freedom not just at home or in church or planned parenthood..in the name of religion you are fighting against a business in order to impose your religious will..i don't see anywhere in the bible where it states you cannot terminate pregnancy.

how is this not any different from that of religious freedom? the planned parenthood (nonprofit) doctors that you bomb and murder are just employees. don't you see you are forcing your will and doing the exact same thing that you're saying others do to you.

but that 75% of RIU who voted for 'no support for israel' is quite indicative of our country's thoughts on the matter..every poll i see not just RIU has a 75/25 or 65/35 split..there are more libs than you are aware.

we're just not annoying like religious people so your group always seems like there is more..at the end of the day..there isn't..an no bazillionaire can buy that!

do you know why there is an old testament and new testament? i do..because old testament was so horrid people finally got smart stopped following the word so then they came up with a 'newer more gentler" testament.

religious people sicken me.

 

[ttystikk]

Yes religiuos freedom in concept is a good thing , in pratice its used as a weapon by organized religion , the same organized religion that enjoys freedoms over & above regular citizens .

Right. So allowing them to refuse services the business offers everything else is no more acceptable, because it's a form of discrimination.

 

[TBoneJack]

Why the fuck are civil rights laws viewed as "states rights issues"?

It seems to me that civil rights should be enforced at a national level without regard to what individual states think.

 

[panhead]

Not quite. Religious freedom, as in the right to practice your religion with your own believers unmolested, is a worthy freedom. It stops being worthy- or free- when people impose their religion or beliefs upon others, which is exactly what this legislature did.

Ok so whats new ? You & i have allways been able to pursue any beliefs we have , so how does refusing service to a particular group fall under the protection of freedom of religion ?

Organized religion wields a huge amount of political power in this country & is therefore dangerous .

 

[panhead]

you sir, are correct!

where's my religious freedom? i want the freedom to not choose religion..how is it religious freedom for the atheist? one of the things about religious freedom is you can check the box that says catholic, protestant, jew or "none" and still are part of society.

so now people are going to exercise their religious freedom not just at home or in church or planned parenthood..in the name of religion you are fighting against a business in order to impose your religious will..i don't see anywhere in the bible where it states you cannot terminate pregnancy.

how is this not any different from that of religious freedom? the planned parenthood (nonprofit) doctors that you bomb and murder are just employees. don't you see you are forcing your will and doing the exact same thing that you're saying others do to you.

but that 75% of RIU who voted for 'no support for israel' is quite indicative of our country's thoughts on the matter..every poll i see not just RIU has a 75/25 or 65/35 split..there are more libs than you are aware.

we're just not annoying like religious people so your group always seems like there is more..at the end of the day..there isn't..an no bazillionaire can buy that!

do you know why there is an old testament and new testament? i do..because old testament was so horrid people finally got smart stopped following the word so then they came up with a 'newer more gentler" testament.

religious people sicken me.

You kinda lost me here , my group & im supporting ?

At no time have i said i support organized religion or the bombing of clinics .

Seriously confused here ?

 

[Rob Roy]

how is a gay couple imposing on a business by trying to buy their goods and services, oh master of language?

Nobody, gay or otherwise should be forced to interact with somebody they prefer not to interact with.

When people are forced to interact with others against their wishes, the imposition becomes self evident.

Whether you and I approve of the reasons why they may not wish to interact is a separate issue.

It would seem, to answer your question, a gay couple by using government threats to force an interaction with somebody that prefers not to interact with them, is imposing on the person wishing not to interact. Again, it's clearly self evident.

 

[see4]

Nobody, gay or otherwise should be forced to interact with somebody they prefer not to interact with.

When people are forced to interact with others against their wishes, the imposition becomes self evident.

Whether you and I approve of the reasons why they may not wish to interact is a separate issue.

It would seem, to answer your question, a gay couple by using government threats to force an interaction with somebody that prefers not to interact with them, is imposing on the person wishing not to interact. Again, it's clearly self evident.

And what about discrimination? Is that not a forced upon coercion? Why must someone not participate in what everyone else can freely do, simply because of their skin color or sexual preference?

Dude, seriously, you are one messed up puppy.

 

[UncleBuck]

a gay couple by using government threats to force an interaction with somebody that prefers not to interact with them, is imposing on the person wishing not to interact.

so a person opens a store to sell goods and services to the public, gay members of the public come in and peacefully offer money to the store owner for their goods and services, and that is an "imposition", a "threat" and "force"?

jesus fucking christ, i don't think you understand what words mean.

 

[Rob Roy]

And what about discrimination? Is that not a forced upon coercion? Why must someone not participate in what everyone else can freely do, simply because of their skin color or sexual preference?

Dude, seriously, you are one messed up puppy.

If a person confines their actions to their property are you saying they've somehow disenfranchised another person of something that other person owns? How do you disenfranchise another person when you use YOUR property as you like but not how another would make you use it?

Also, because I respect all private property owners rights to choose, even a bigots, that doesn't mean that I endorse their choices though does it?

You think people should be forced to associate. Isn't that forced association the initial act of aggression? Why should anybody be able to force another into an interaction? Can you answer that ?

You seem to like to lump shit together and draw false conclusions too. Is that because a distraction is your best argument?

 

[Rob Roy]

so a person opens a store to sell goods and services to the public, gay members of the public come in and peacefully offer money to the store owner for their goods and services, and that is an "imposition", a "threat" and "force"?

jesus fucking christ, i don't think you understand what words mean you dumb bigoted fuck.

Okay, in a rare moment I'm gonna brag. I scored the highest you possibly can on the translation of standard written english in high school decades ago. That's sort of like an 800 on an SAT, in that area...Bozo. Maybe you can brag now and wave your massive dick around or something?


If a person owning the property wants to interact with you, it's not an imposition.

If the person doesn't want to interact, its an imposition.

Let's say the Avon lady showed up at your house and insisted she had a right to make you interact with her, does that mean you have no right to refuse her entry into your property if some piece of paper she waves around has created a law granting her access?
What color lipstick would she use to paint your clown face is another question.


Also, I'm not a bigot, but you are an admitted floor abuser.

 

[Rob Roy]

i think you mean to say "indifference".

Who owns the gas is a good first question. The second question is, if a person owns something, who has the right to determine its use, the owner or a non owner?

Who has the right to force somebody to transact or interact with them? Don't rapists force interactions too?






Also, I smell something funny, you didn't shit your pants again did you?

 

[Rob Roy]

maybe ask any black person who grew up in the south before civil rights, you dumb fuck.



can a gay person force a bigot to open a store?

didn't think so you dumb bigoted fuck.

Should any person, gay or otherwise, be able to go to anothers property and demand that person interact with them?

Who is the aggressor in that situation?



BTW - Thanks for changing your diapers, the smell has almost dissipated. Much appreciated.

 

[UncleBuck]

Don't rapists force interactions too?

there goes robroy, comparing selling goods and services to blacks and gays to rape once again. but he's totally not a bigot.

 

[Rob Roy]

if they don't want to sell their goods and services to the public (interact), then why did they open a store to sell goods and services to the public then?

the person opened a store to sell goods and services to the public. if a gay couple peacefully offers money to the person in exchange for their goods and services and the person doesn't want to interact because of their skin color or sexual orientation, it is not an imposition. it is bigotry.





you sure as fuck are, you bigoted piece of shit.

So, it couldn't be both bigotry and an imposition under threat of force? Why not?

 

[UncleBuck]

Should any person, gay or otherwise, be able to go to anothers property and demand that person interact with them?

Who is the aggressor in that situation?

the law we are discussing makes it legally defensible to deny service to someone specifically because they are gay.

if someone refuses to sell someone goods and services on the specific basis that they are gay, who is the aggressor in that situation?

 

[UncleBuck]

So, it couldn't be both bigotry and an imposition under threat of force? Why not?

no, it cannot be an imposition when a person opens a store to sell goods and services to the public, and a peaceful member of the public offers them money in exchange for their goods and services. that is the entire idea behind opening a business that sells goods and services to the public.

 

[Rob Roy]

there goes robroy, comparing selling goods and services to blacks and gays to rape once again. but he's totally not a bigot.

I've made it clear that's not my position if I owned a gas station. Yet you persist in recreating things. I'm not a bigot, but I do respect a bigots right to chose their interactions on a consensual basis, just like anybody else should be able to.

When you have to recreate and lie, it means your arguments aren't refuting anything, it means you're making shit up as a distraction.

We know what happens when you and shit get together don't we Poopy Pants?

 

[UncleBuck]

I do respect a bigots right to chose their interactions

so you respect white separatism, but you are totally not a racist bigot?

 

[Rob Roy]

the law we are discussing makes it legally defensible to deny service to someone specifically because they are gay.

if someone refuses to sell someone goods and services on the specific basis that they are gay, who is the aggressor in that situation?

Are you saying that a person refusing to interact with you is the aggressor? How is that possible? It's not. The person insisting on an interaction is the aggressor.

None of us have the right to force interactions with others who would rather not interact with us, especially if they are remaining on their property....rapist. Do you climb into peoples windows at night too?

 

[UncleBuck]

The person insisting on an interaction is the aggressor.

so the way you would describe a gay person who is peacefully offering money to a store owner in exchange for goods and services is "an aggressor".

what would you call the store owner who is refusing to sell goods and services to someone for the sole reason that they are gay? hero? your personal hero? awesome?