Saturday, March 14, 2015

A Win-Win Plan for Oklahoma

This is genius. I'll let Slate tell you:
When not debating whether to outlaw hoodies or protect parents’ decision to force their children into ex-gay conversion therapy, the severely conservative Oklahoma legislature has spent much of this session debating an anti-gay “religious liberty” bill. The measure would allow both private businesses and government entities to refuse service to gay people based on their religious beliefs. Although the proposed legislation is similar to the Arizona bill that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed last year, it actually goes much further, explicitly permitting anybody—from a hotel owner to a DMV employee to a social worker—to turn away gay people if their religious beliefs require it.

Now a legislator has introduced a brilliant amendment to the House version of bill, which, in taking the measure to its logical conclusion, explosively reveals the animus underlying it. The lawmaker, Democratic state Rep. Emily Virgin, fiercely opposes the “religious liberty” bill. But if it does pass, Virgin wants to ensure that gay couples know which businesses and government agencies will refuse them service so they can avoid the indignity of being turned away based on their identity. So Virgin’s amendment requires that “any person” who despises gay people too much to serve them must simply “post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites.” The amendment would promulgate the same notice requirement for businesses that refuse to service based on race or gender identity. Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants Anti-Gay Businesses to Post “No Gays Allowed” Signs. Excellent!
So under this law, if Jesus doesn't want you to serve gay people, you don't have to. And you don't have to suppress your beliefs because of political correctness. You don't serve gays, why would you want them coming into your place of business and trying to buy something, if you're not going to sell it to them? You have the unpleasant moments of interacting with Sodomites, and they are likely to get upset and have a protest anyway. Or call the press and cry that you won't bake them a cake for their so-called "wedding."

The easy solution for everyone is this: if you belong to a religion that does not let you do business with gay people, then put a sign in the window. "No Gays Allowed." They will know to stay away, and if they come in anyway then you have a good legal case, because they knew better.

Why wouldn't this work?

It would even be good for business, I bet. Somebody is walking down the street, trying not to breathe the gay air or bump elbows with gay people on the sidewalk, and they see your sign and come in for refuge, and to spend money. They might recognize that you are a good, moral person like them and come in to support you in your moral convictions by buying something.

Seventy-eight percent of Oklahomans identify themselves as Christians. So obviously, putting this sign in your window will be great for business. The nice Christian folks will go out of their way to do business with you, and those pesky gays won't be asking for stuff they aren't going to get, leaving their gay cooties on your countertops. It seems to me it is a winning proposition for everyone.


260 Comments:

Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The bigots don't want regular folk to know they're bigots so they weren't willing to pass the license to discriminate law as long as they were required to admit they were discriminating against gays.

March 14, 2015 7:11 PM  
Anonymous we will not be slaves again said...

Any reason why people can't just choose for themselves who they want to work for?

Seems to me anything else is servitude.

And unless your are part of some protected class, this is considered part of our freedom.

But, in the way that homosexuals are degrading our society, they now seek to end this freedom.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that Christians should generally provide the same services to gays that they provide to everyone else and I think Jesus wants them to.

I just don't think it's something the government should enforce.

And situations where business owners should get an exception because providing the service would amount to participation in immoral activity. Baking a cake and writing "happy gay wedding would be that. Renting a hotel room to two gays to sleep together might be another.

Also, we do you lose your freedom unless you have religious motives? If someone has a moral objection and is not a religious believer should still have the freedom to deal with whoever he wants to.

And having the government judge when someone is acting out of sincere religious motive is unconstitutional.

Why do homosexuals want to force people with an objection to homosexuality to make cakes celebrating their same sex "marriage"?

Same as the gay agenda has always been: use government force to compel people to acknowledge their normality.

The community has plenty of bakers and florists. No need to try to get the government to enforce servitude.

March 15, 2015 1:00 AM  
Anonymous Boston Strong said...

Boston St. Patrick's Parade To Include Gay Groups For First Time

"BOSTON, March 14 (Reuters) - Two homosexual rights groups will march in Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade on Sunday after organizers lifted a longtime ban on lesbian, gay and transgender (LGBT) organizations joining the annual Irish-American march.

Boston Pride, an LGBT rights group, said this week organizers had accepted its application to participate in this year's march through the Irish bastion of South Boston.

The rights group will join OutVets, representing gay veterans, in bringing an end to two decades of debate over the issue. Organizers had insisted that homosexuality conflicted with Catholic doctrine, but the ban ran counter to the liberal mores that prevail in Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

"This is a huge step forward in our mission to have inclusivity in our city and in the Boston-area community," said Malcolm Carey, clerk of Boston Pride's board of directors, in a phone interview.

Mayor Marty Walsh, who last year skipped the parade because of its exclusion of gay groups, plans to march on Sunday, becoming the first mayor to do so in 20 years.

Boston's mayors have stayed away since 1995, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the Allied War Veterans Council to ban participants identifying themselves as homosexual.

"With this year's parade, Boston is putting years of controversy behind us," said Walsh, in a statement.

The state's Republican governor, Charles Baker, will also march, along with Democratic U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran who plans to march with OutVets, calling gay rights "the civil rights fight of our generation."

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has said he will boycott the city's St. Patrick's Day Parade again this year, with its organizers refusing to admit more than one gay rights group.

The lifting of the Boston parade's ban was not without controversy. The Massachusetts contingent of Knights of Columbus, an organization of Catholic men, pulled out of the parade on Friday, calling the event "politicized and divisive."

The Knights had been criticized by the conservative Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, which accused the Knights of "an unconscionable betrayal of Catholic moral principles" for its plans to march.

Organizers have shortened the parade route by about half this year, after the city's near-record snowfall made it difficult to clear roads. (Editing By Frank McGurty and Marguerita Choy)"

March 15, 2015 9:13 AM  
Anonymous pride about what again? said...

stop the presses

homosexuals marching in a parade

who woulda thought it could ever happen?

of course, they will be restrained from the usual disgusting antics they conduct at gay pride parades

March 15, 2015 10:11 AM  
Anonymous watch out for the TTF gestapo said...

that's great

Catholics in Boston have allowed themselves into being bullied by gays

if someone doesn't go, will they be required, under threat of criminal prosecution, to wear a sign explaining they don't attend parades that include homosexuals?

because anyone who doesn't believe in the moral neutrality of homosexuality must be publicly identified so homosexuals know who to attack

it's just like the Jews in Nazi Germany had to wear stars to make sure everyone knew who they were

March 15, 2015 1:30 PM  
Anonymous AAA said...

"I just don't think it's something the government should enforce."

You call that thinking?! Don't fool yourself. Nobody cares what you think anyway.

"Catholics in Boston have allowed themselves into being bullied by gays"

I'm sure you have evidence to back up your ridiculous claim. Feel free to share it at any time.

Gay folks have been working hard to change people's hearts and minds for years, and it finally paying off. Even Pope Frank is telling his flock to chill out on the whole gay hating thing. Pay attention dude.

"if someone doesn't go, will they be required, under threat of criminal prosecution, to wear a sign explaining they don't attend parades that include homosexuals?"

Reading comprehension just isn't your forte, is it? The sign law (which hasn't even been passed) was an amendment to a religious fanatic's wet dream in Oklahoma. When it comes to the parade: "Boston's mayors have stayed away since 1995, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the Allied War Veterans Council to ban participants identifying themselves as homosexual."

"it's just like the Jews in Nazi Germany had to wear stars to make sure everyone knew who they were"

Oh yeah, it's JUST like that.
Hmmm... can't tell if you're drunk, high, or both when you make stuff up like that. There's hyperbole, and then there's ridiculous hyperbole. Congratulations. You have definitely reached "Ludicrous Hyperbole!" Enjoy your trip through the galaxy. Watch out for those big, hairy, gay wookies.





March 16, 2015 12:20 AM  
Anonymous when logic knocks, answer quickly said...

"You call that thinking?! Don't fool yourself. Nobody cares what you think anyway."

Everyone should copy this statement and save it for all the times you say something really stupid and really don't want to admit it. This is your best chance at diverting attention from your inane position.

TTF takes the position that if you agree to perform services for anyone, in exchange for compensation, you should be required to perform that service for homosexuals as well. That's even if the performance of that service constitutes endorsement, encouragement, or enablement of homosexuality, regardless of whether homosexuality is compatible with your religious beliefs. Jim has now agreed, facetiously I hope, that maybe we could let religious people out of this requirement, but only if they put a sign in their window identifying themselves. I think the government should stay out of the realm of who does business with whom.

Apparently, this commenter has realized I'm right. Thus, the rhetorical dodge.

"Gay folks have been working hard to change people's hearts and minds for years, and it finally paying off."

Actually, they have been trying to impose their view on others in any way they can think of. Boycotts, governmental regulation of speech and association, petitions to get public figures who disagree with them fired, legal tricks to prevent citizens from voting. They basically seek to banish from society anyone who doesn't endorse the normality of homosexuality.

Look at their actions in the Chik-Fil-A matter last year. The owner of the company had made donations to an organization that supports the traditional definition of marriage. He didn't refuse to serve gays. He didn't refuse to employ gays. He didn't refuse to buy from gays. And when gays protested outside his store on a hot day, he had his staff bring them water. Gay advocates tried everything they could to put him out of business.

"Even Pope Frank is telling his flock to chill out on the whole gay hating thing. Pay attention dude."

Maybe Pope Frank was guilty of some "gay hating thing'. I wouldn't know. I don't follow him.

Opposing the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuality is not "hate"

"Reading comprehension just isn't your forte, is it? The sign law (which hasn't even been passed) was an amendment to a religious fanatic's wet dream in Oklahoma."

My comprehension is fine. This TTF post calls the sign law "genius". I assume, by the same logic, if a religious organization doesn't allow gays in their parade, they should have to carry signs explaining that.

"Oh yeah, it's JUST like that."

You might want to explain the difference. Person has to wear a sign to identify their religious beliefs, by government fiat. The goal is to bully the identified party. Sounds the same.

March 16, 2015 12:31 PM  
Anonymous warming up for the prosecution said...

like inquisitions?

if you don't agree with Dems on global warming, you will be subject to one:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/16/editorial-democrats-seek-out-global-warming-resear/

voting for Hillary?

she may face a prison sentence:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ronald-d-rotunda-hillarys-emails-and-the-law-1426547356

March 17, 2015 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"After three decades of debate over its stance on homosexuality, members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted on Tuesday to change the definition of marriage in the church’s constitution to include same-sex marriage.

The final approval by a majority of the church’s 171 regional bodies, known as presbyteries, enshrines a change recommended last year by the church’s General Assembly. The vote amends the church’s constitution to broaden marriage from being between “a man and a woman” to “two people, traditionally a man and a woman.”

“Finally, the church in its constitutional documents fully recognizes that the love of gays and lesbian couples is worth celebrating in the faith community,” said the Rev. Brian D. Ellison, executive director of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, which advocates gay inclusion in the church. “There is still disagreement, and I don’t mean to minimize that, but I think we are learning that we can disagree and still be church together.”"

March 18, 2015 1:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"After three decades of debate over its stance on homosexuality, members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted on Tuesday to change the definition of marriage in the church’s constitution to include same-sex marriage.".

That's the largest protestant group in the U.S.

The gay agenda is going down in flames! Flames I tell ya!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

March 18, 2015 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I belong to a Presbyterian church that was part of PCUSA and left in 1983, over many scriptural issues, including this.

Then, they had 3.31 million members

in 2014, they had 1.76 million

March 19, 2015 12:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7.5 Million Americans Have 'Lost Their Religion' Since 2012

(RNS) A new survey shows in stark relief that what some are calling the Great Decline of religion in America continues: Since 2012, the U.S. has about 7.5 million more Americans who are no longer active in religion.

Earlier this month, the 2014 General Social Survey was released. The GSS is the gold standard for sociological surveys. Funded by the National Science Foundation, this multimillion-dollar study gives us the most accurate data on American society — including religion.

1. More Americans prefer “no religion.”

When asked their religious preference, nearly 1 in 4 Americans now says “none.” Up until the 1990s, the percentage who were in this group known as “nones” hovered in the single digits. The 2014 GSS showed that nones are 21 percent of the population, up one point from 2012.

How large is this group? There are nearly as many Americans who claim no religion as there are Catholics (24 percent). If this growth continues, in a few years the largest “religion” in the U.S. may be no religion at all.

2. Americans aren’t going to church like they used to.

The number of Americans who never darken a church door is also at a new high. Over a third of Americans (34 percent) never attend a worship service (other than weddings and other ceremonies). This is a 3-point increase from just a few years earlier.

3. More Americans say they never pray.

Is this just a departure from organized religion? Even with people no longer identifying with religion or attending worship services, they still pray. Nearly one-in-six Americans never prays.

March 19, 2015 8:54 AM  
Anonymous tell me why said...

I won't speak to other religions, which I consider false, but Christianity, as described in scripture, is always the faith of the "chosen few"

the only truly global religion, impacting all cultures and societies, it moves in waves

currently, it is booming in Africa, Latin America and China

as for America, there have been several waves

in 1776, for example, only 17% of Americans attended church

subsequent revivals changed that

the pattern has been for churches to start secularizing and accepting things like gay "marriage"

this causes a decline until a revival comes forth

but, of course, some day, instead of a revival, Christ himself will appear

scripture indicates that most people won't be Christians at that time

March 19, 2015 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CYCLONE PAM HAS DEVASTATED VANUATU.
PLEASE HELP.

Utter devastation. Like a bomb was dropped. That’s how CARE staff in Vanuatu describes the damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Pam. A Category 5 storm with sustained winds of more than 160 miles per hour, Pam is one of the most powerful South Pacific storms on record.

Much of Vanuatu remains cut off from communication and transportation, so the full extent of Pam’s damage is not known. But it’s already clear from CARE’s on-the-ground reports that Vanuatu’s emergency needs will be enormous.

Please help. Your generous gift will support survivors of Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu and other survivors of disasters, war and extreme poverty around the world.

Donate to CARE here.

March 19, 2015 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just from talking to people who have been on the scene at these kinds of events in the past, I'd say giving to the Salvation Army would be more effective

March 19, 2015 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The improbable, 200-year-old story of one of America’s first same-sex ‘marriages’

"....“Our popular narrative of same-sex marriage says it’s this brand new thing,” said Rachel Hope Cleves, an associate professor of history at the University of Victoria and the author of a new study in the latest issue of the Journal of American History chronicling 500 years of same-sex unions in the United States. “But the reality is that it came over with human migration” — contrary, for example, to Justice Samuel Alito’s comment during oral arguments on California’s Proposition 8 case that it’s an “institution which is newer than cellphones or the Internet.”

Long before United States vs. Windsor — before the Defense of Marriage Act, even before the Stonewall Riots — gays and lesbians in North America found ways to live as married couples, in practice if not in law, according to Cleves’s research. In the mid-16th century, Spanish conquistador Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca wrote about a custom of “one man married to another,” which he saw in several Gulf Coast communities. Newspaper accounts from the 18th and 19th centuries tell sensationalized stories of “female husbands,” women who passed as men and married other women for love or money. California miners Jason Chamberlain and John Chaffee lived together for more than 50 years, and were thought of as “wedded bachelors” by those who knew them...."

March 20, 2015 10:52 AM  
Anonymous let's be becoming said...

yes, gays have always found ways to partner up

until recently, this would a long-time odd couple, usually referred to as "friend of the family" or "uncle"

everyone knew the truth, but it was all discreet

no big revelation

for society to recognize this as a "marriage" is new

the new visibility is not becoming

and it's in no one's best interest

March 20, 2015 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pope Francis to Dine with Gay and Transgender Inmates in Naples Prison

"He made a special request to have lunch with inmates

Pope Francis will have lunch on Saturday with some 90 inmates at a prison near Naples, including some that reportedly come from a ward housing gay, transgender and HIV-infected inmates.

Tv2000, a television network operated by Italy’s Catholic bishops, reports that lunch at the Giuseppe Salvia Detention Center was originally not on the schedule, but Pope Francis made a special request to dine with the inmates. A number of the estimated 100 prisoners are gay, transgender and/or infected with HIV, the report said.

The prisoners were chosen via raffle from the facility’s 1900 inmates, writes David Gibson, a top Vatican watcher at Religion News Service. Pope Francis intends to greet each prisoner after a short and simple meal, Vatican Radio reports.

Pope Francis has made caring for inmates a priority of his papacy. He washed the feet of Muslim and women prisoners weeks after his election as pope, and is planning to wash inmates feet again this upcoming Holy Thursday. Pope Francis on Friday also reiterated the Catholic Church’s position that no crime deserves the death penalty. Capital punishment, he said, is “inadmissible, however serious the crime.”

The report of the lunch is also a reminder of the new tone and signature phrase of the Pope Francis papacy–“Who am I to judge?”–which was the Holy Father’s response to a question about homosexuality months after his election.

March 21, 2015 4:54 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"Opposing the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuality is not 'hate'"

Simply opposing something is one thing. Taking action to deny a carefully selected minority the legal protections marriage provides everyone else is overtly hateful. Calling those actions religiously-motivated doesn’t change that.

Leviticus 20:13 mandates the genocide of gay men, should we soon expect further cries of religious persecution because our laws don’t permit mass murder?

March 21, 2015 11:23 PM  
Anonymous sunday morning coming down said...

Patrick, you looney tune, "gay" is not a race, it is a preference

furthermore, the law was based on actions, not feelings

having a preference for rubbing yourself up against guys is fine as long as you don't do it

you may also note that the law in ancient Israel also required capital punishment for many other sins

homosexual actions were just one of many

finally, quoting laws from the Torah outside the context of the rest of scripture is basically deceptive

March 22, 2015 10:08 AM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"'gay' is not a race, it is a preference"

Many LGBT people would "prefer" to be heterosexual, but since sexual orientation is a form of human sexuality, it is not a matter of "preference," it just is. Preference or not, LGBTs fall neatly within the definition of race.

More importantly though, I find it quite telling that your primary objection was with my reference of the mass murder of gay men as "genocide," as opposed to the proliferate use of the Biblical law mandating mass murder (to further your anti-LGBT hate agenda).

"furthermore, the law was based on actions, not feelings"

So it was only ok to murder sexually active gay men. Thank you for clarifying.

"having a preference for rubbing yourself up against guys is fine as long as you don't do it"

Hatred is a choice. Characterizing our relationships and desire to commit to one another for life -- legally -- as filthy promiscuity is hateful. Choosing to hate when you know better is loving to hate - the very definition of evil. To then shriek and howl about how unfair it is to call you hateful is imbecilic.

"you may also note that the law in ancient Israel also required capital punishment for many other sins"

Then why is it we only hear from you and ilk about the ones that relate to homosexuality?

"finally, quoting laws from the Torah outside the context of the rest of scripture is basically deceptive"

Then you and your anti-LGBT friends should stop doing so.

March 23, 2015 4:51 AM  
Anonymous what do you with a problem like improv? said...

"Many LGBT people would "prefer" to be heterosexual,"

oh, they'd prefer to prefer something else

very Clintonesque

you're playing with words

it's the second favorite thing for gays to play with

"but since sexual orientation is a form of human sexuality, it is not a matter of "preference," it just is"

"orientation" is a propaganda term devised by the lunatic fringe to exploit the gains of racial equality made over the last half century

there's no reason to think preferences about sexual activities are any more inherent than a preference for tea over coffee or plaids over stripes

"Preference or not, LGBTs fall neatly within the definition of race"

actually, under the definition you linked, they don't

there are peoples of all races who have developed these types of warped preferences

"More importantly though, I find it quite telling that your primary objection was with my reference of the mass murder of gay men as "genocide," as opposed to the proliferate use of the Biblical law mandating mass murder (to further your anti-LGBT hate agenda)"

I objected to your false charge

why do you find it "telling" that I didn't object to a charge you didn't make?

playing with words

your second favorite play thing

"So it was only ok to murder sexually active gay men. Thank you for clarifying."

capital punishment is not murder

they had a judicial system

"Hatred is a choice. Characterizing our relationships and desire to commit to one another for life -- legally -- as filthy promiscuity is hateful."

I didn't bring up the issue of rubbing up against someone other than that special fella

and I simply described, accurately, what goes on

the rest is eye of the beholder territory

"Choosing to hate when you know better is loving to hate - the very definition of evil. To then shriek and howl about how unfair it is to call you hateful is imbecilic."

if you want to think that people who don't endorse your self-destructive behavior are hateful, you're actually just immature

the land is full of teenagers who think the same

"Then why is it we only hear from you and ilk about the ones that relate to homosexuality?"

you actually don't

except for some strange group of family members in Westboro, I don't recall any churches emphasize capital punishment for homosexuality

again, the Bible says many things about the Old Testament law, and you aren't accounting for the entire context

it's beyond the scope of a blog comment section

but why don't you read it so you won't sound so ignorant?

"Then you and your anti-LGBT friends should stop doing so."

I don't recall ever doing so

I've read the entire context

have you?

March 23, 2015 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's official

http://www.tedcruz.com/

March 23, 2015 7:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It will be so good when Ted Cruz can continue to carry out President Huckabee's strategy for bringing America back to its rightful owners.

March 23, 2015 8:20 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

As I said: "Choosing to hate when you know better is loving to hate - the very definition of evil." :

Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People: Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic.

"Internet trolls (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics. That’s bad, but it’s nothing compared with what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of trolls themselves.

The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).

The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior.

Overall, the authors found that the relationship between sadism and trolling was the strongest, and that indeed, sadists appear to troll because they find it pleasurable. 'Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others,' they wrote."
[emphasis mine]

It’s no wonder then that you don’t see or care how hateful you are, that would require a conscience.

March 24, 2015 8:29 AM  
Anonymous cool hand anon said...

well, Patrick, I'll take the fact that you didn't address any of my points as a concession of defeat on your part

it's a little hard to give much credence to your remarks when you clearly think any slight deviance from gay agenda doctrine is "hateful" and any posting of such deviance on the internet is "trolling"

Patrick "Improv" Fitzgerald:

he can be a nice guy

or he can be one mean sonofabitch

just don't provoke him

and by "provoke", we mean disagree with him

March 24, 2015 9:56 AM  
Anonymous not improvising said...

hey emproph

did you read the whole Bible yet so you can understand, in context, the meaning of the law in ancient Israel?

you could probably get mostly there simply by reading the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 4-6) and all of Paul's letters

remember the words of Sun Tzu:

"know thyself
know thy enemy
a thousand battles
a thousand victories"

overcome your fear of truth

March 24, 2015 10:02 AM  
Anonymous imagine there's no donkeys said...

"It will be so good when Ted Cruz can continue to carry out President Huckabee's strategy"

I actually saw Ted Cruz on the Seth Myer show last week

I know he's an obsession with liberals but, strangely, I'd never paid much attention to him

I shouldn't have been surprised but he is polar opposite of the wild-eyed demonic caricature that the lunatic left has been devising

he's not my first choice

I'd prefer Walker, Huckabee or Ben Carson

still, seemed like a great guy and I'd be happy with him as President

remember when George Bush debated Al Gore

all the media talking heads thought Gore won going away

then the polls came out and, it turned out, Americans would much rather go out and have a beer with Bush

now, imagine a debate between Cruz and Hillary, Warren, Gore or any of the self-important liberal lunatics

it's easy if you try

March 24, 2015 10:58 AM  
Anonymous report from the resistance to the Obama caliphate said...

Sir Barry has been running around saying "five years later, it looks like Obamacare is a bib success. Truth is, the Dems keep delaying it's implementation. Now, a handful of Dems say the rules pertaining to small business are "harmful" and want the White House to delay them. So, why are they so dead set against repeal? And why do they think laws passed by Congress are voluntary for the administration anyway? When will America be restored to a representative democracy?

Read all about it:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dem-senators-warn-obamacare-rule-particularly-harmful-and-disruptive/article/2561942

March 24, 2015 1:56 PM  
Anonymous all slurped-out said...

hey, did you know that scientists, who are regularly in the media, and I mean every other day, with some new alarming finding about the coming catastrophe of global warming, are being paid to do so?

the U.S. government and several private research foundations are giving scientists billions of dollars to say that

you won't get a grant if you say that global warming is an overblown threat

meanwhile certain McCarthy-like Senators are conducting am inquisition into scientists who dare to disagree with AGW theory

and media outlets are being bullied into not letting such scientists be interviewed in public forums

must be the new "scientific" method

we used to call it propaganda

March 24, 2015 3:00 PM  
Anonymous lancelot link said...

sorry, kids

forgot your link:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/24/reporters-explain-why-balance-isnt-needed-on-global-warming/

March 24, 2015 3:01 PM  
Anonymous lancelot link said...

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/24/reporters-explain-why-balance-isnt-needed-on-global-warming/

March 24, 2015 8:40 PM  
Anonymous ripplin' waters wake me said...

you kids might be interested in this:

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03/23/bob-jones-iii-apologizes-stone-gays-remarks/

March 24, 2015 8:44 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

My prediction is that if states pass laws allowing discrimination justified by religion, they will mostly get discrimination against people because of their religion.

March 25, 2015 9:56 AM  
Anonymous found father said...

Robert, all discrimination laws in America should be abolished. They are an infringement on a citizen's right to associate and do business with who they please and should be a last, and temporary, resort when some group of people faces insurmountable hindrances to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Telling people who they have to serve is a hindrance to all three of those pursuits. One could say African Americans in the 1950s were in this situation. Currently, no one is. The U.S. is the most wide open and inclusive society on Earth and there is no justification for extraordinary measures that threaten the liberty of citizens.

March 25, 2015 10:26 AM  
Anonymous slobbie the robot said...

Robert cracks me up. Every so often pop up out of his hole and make a peep.

Then, he gets smacked down and whimpers back down to the dark until he forgets and pops up again.

Endless idiocy

March 25, 2015 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A teenager from Missouri is leading a new campaign to change local school dress codes after his school’s administration attempted to force him into taking off what they considered “female” clothes. His message is simple: clothing has no gender. It’s a message that is catching fire in many countries across the world.

Morgan Ball recently turned seventeen. For a long time now he’s enjoyed mixing up his clothing style with what might be classed as traditionally female clothes, and to celebrate his birthday he decided that he would dress a little more flamboyantly for school than usual by wearing a corset over his shirt, a lace shrug and a few other accessories: all of which were within the bounds of the school dress code, albeit for female students because the code doesn’t take into account in any kind of non-binary approach to our apparel.

Ball attends Lee’s Summit North High School and, as he has routinely worn clothes like this, didn’t think there would be a problem. However, as he told MTV in a recent interview, he soon faced a hostile situation for which he wasn’t prepared:

'The assistant principal called me down to the office during second period, and I was really confused, and I didn’t know what to expect. The first question that they asked me was, “Do you have any gender identity issues?”'

Ball said he does not. He simply likes the clothes he wears. The assistant principal reportedly wasn’t budging on this issue and sent him to the bathroom to get changed and take off his accessories. Then, his other teachers stepped in:

'But when I returned to class, my French teacher said, “No, wait. This who you are. You shouldn’t have to do that. This is none of their business.” So, I put the accessories back on—because I knew that I wasn’t in violation of the dress code. I was called down again during seventh period, and I told my choir teacher, “They’re going to make me take this off again, but… I know that I’m not wrong.” He came with me back to the office, where I was told that the staff was very disappointed in me.

I told them that I had thought about it more and that I was uncomfortable being asked to suppress myself, to be asked to be someone who I am not. The administration used the words “disrespectful” and “disruptive,” which I have not been and never was. They told me that I had “crossed the line” and asked if I was aware that I was wearing women’s clothing. Which, you know, um, “Yes.”'

The difference was marked. Ball had the support of the teaching staff, but not the school’s administration. That’s when Ball’s friends decided to do something about it. They began the #ClothesHaveNoGender campaign. They have printed t-shirts and started the slogan on social media which has been growing steadily ever since. The campaign aims to change the school district’s dress code policy that Ball says is vague and so leaves itself open to being abused for discriminatory purposes. It relies too much on the administration’s discretion, supporters say, and doesn’t place an emphasis on students’ established First Amendment rights to self-expression within the bounds of what is safe and orderly for a school day.

Throughout the interviews and comments Ball has given he has been very clear that he believes it is important to be respectful and considerate, but there has been absolutely no suggestion that, other than wearing traditionally female clothing items, he has ever acted of line during the course of this incident and the fallout.

The school has since reportedly apologized and said that it will be evaluating the dress code. It has also reportedly said that it will not interfere with a planned demonstration that will happen this week at the school.

March 26, 2015 8:29 AM  
Anonymous dress for success said...

"students’ established First Amendment rights to self-expression"

are you really saying that school dress codes violate the Bill of Rights?

before I start telling you what I think, I'll give you a chance to clarify

March 26, 2015 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ted Cruz, one of the loudest critics of Obamacare, will soon be using it for health insurance coverage.

"We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care, and we're in the process of transitioning over to do that," Cruz, a Republican candidate for president, told The Des Moines Register on Tuesday.

Cruz's wife, Heidi, is going on an unpaid leave of absence from her job at Goldman Sachs to join Cruz full time on the campaign trail, Cruz told the Register.

Bloomberg was first to report that Heidi Cruz has taken the leave. CNN noted that Cruz, who has boasted about not needing to receive government health care benefits, would no longer be covered under his wife's health insurance plan.

Cruz confirmed that to the Register.

Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley pushed through an amendment on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that requires members of Congress to obtain their coverage via health insurance exchanges. Congress pays most of the premium. But Cruz won't be getting any extra benefit under the Affordable Care Act that a member of Congress wouldn't have gotten before the ACA became law.

The exchanges are an online marketplace where small businesses, people who carry their own coverage, and the uninsured can buy health insurance.

The public marketplace is the only place where moderate-income Americans can obtain policies that qualify for Obamacare subsidies. (Poor people can get Medicaid, which is separate.)

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-health-insurance-obamacare/70384334/

March 26, 2015 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

California is the home of the citizens' initiative ballot process, a process that's too easy to manipulate for evil, as is proven by a ballot measure that calls for lesbians and gays to be "put to death by bullets to the head or any other convenient method." A gap in the law means that for $200, anyone can file a ballot measure and it has to be considered and put forward for signature gathering. Which also means that for just $200, a counter proposal can be, and has been, filed.

Frustrated by the attorney general’s inability to combat McLaughlin’s proposal, Charlotte Laws has decided to fight back with some free speech of her own. On Monday morning, Laws plans to file the Intolerant Jackass Act, accompanied by the requisite $200, with the California attorney general. Laws' proposal cleverly mirrors and skewers the Sodomite Suppression Act, explaining that the "abominable crime known as prejudice against sexual orientation" is "a destructive view that society commands us to suppress." […]

"I'm fighting fire with fire," [Laws said]. "The only way to counter [the Sodomite Suppression Act] is … to let people know that most people in California don't agree with something as incendiary and hateful as what this one attorney proposed." Laws recognizes the merit of having a content-neutral initiative system, but she believes "we have a very open-minded state and country. This is one guy, and there are millions of us who do not agree with this."

Laws proposal would require that anyone who brings a "kill the gays" ballot initiative forward "shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months," and "the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5,000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization." Is it unconstitutional? Yes, just as unconstitutional as the kill the gays proposal. Which also serves to prove that California should do something about fixing its initiative process. Although how satisfying would it be to have the "Intolerant Jackass Act" in the penal code of at least one state?

March 26, 2015 2:10 PM  
Anonymous the law of the land said...

Hey, look at that!!

Ted Cruz is a law-abiding citizen in contrast to the delinquent Sir Barry.

The ACA is the law of the land, passed five years ago.

Cruz's wife is not going to be employed and for Cruz to get benefits through his employer, he is required to go through an exchange. It's the law.

What are you implying?

Sir Barry, on the other hand, directs his administration to ignore the law any time it's politically convenient or advantageous.

He has a similar attitude with many laws. Impeachment is probably appropriate although everyone would like to avoid putting the country through that. Hopefully, we can get through the next 22 months without too much damage to our nation. Then, a competent and law-abiding leader can move the country forward.

March 26, 2015 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Peep.

March 26, 2015 2:31 PM  
Anonymous chocolate eggs said...

Sounds you're getting ready for Easter too early, Robert.

Go back in your hole until it's time to fill baskets with jelly beans and peeps.



March 26, 2015 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Wizards bad, Bullets good said...

"The only way to counter [the Sodomite Suppression Act] is … to let people know that most people in California don't agree with something as incendiary and hateful as what this one attorney proposed."

Really?

How about just countering it by not voting for it?

That's what everyone in California, who is not an attention-seeking jackass like Charlotte Laws, will do.

Regardless of the issue, it's hard to see how the California's ballot is not cluttered with thousands of questions if they don't require some significant level of support before putting something on it.

March 26, 2015 2:57 PM  
Anonymous freedom fighter said...

good news, kids:

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/03/26/news/nation/indiana-governor-signs-religious-freedom-bill-that-could-affect-gays/

March 26, 2015 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The ACA is the law of the land, passed five years ago.

Cruz's wife is not going to be employed and for Cruz to get benefits through his employer, he is required to go through an exchange. It's the law."


Hmmmm, what are you forgetting? Oh yeah, the Moonie rag has it:

Senate defeats Cruz filibuster, passes bill that funds Obamacare

"Senators from both parties linked arms to defy Sen. Ted Cruz, overcoming his attempt to filibuster the stopgap spending bill, which allowed Democrats to add back in full funding for Obamacare and power the bill through the chamber and sending it back to the House.

“This is it. Time is gone,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said he will not negotiate with the House GOP anymore. “They need to accept what we just passed.”

The 79-19 vote saw 25 Republicans join with all Democrats to advance the bill, easily overcoming Mr. Cruz and his allies who had argued this was the key point that would determine whether major parts of President Obama’s health care law take effect next week.

Once that hurdle was cleared, the rest of the votes were preordained. The Senate waived budget rules, voted to strip out the Obamacare defunding on a 54-44 party line vote, and passed the bill.

The bill now heads back to the House, where Republicans are struggling to figure out a path forward, trapped between a right wing which insists on full defunding and Senate Democrats, who just proved that stance cannot succeed..."


Ted Cruz was against Obamacare before he was for it.

March 26, 2015 4:33 PM  
Anonymous disgusted with liberals said...

this is the kind of asinine bullshit from liberals that makes the political discourse in our nation so toxic

everyone knows Cruz was opposed to Obamacare

so what?

over his objections, that's the way his employer requires him to get employer-provided health insurance

indeed, the government is currently, unconstitutionally, requiring it

it's just like if your employer, McDonald's, was planning to switch health providers from say Blue Cross to Kaiser

even if you opposed the move, you'd still sign up for the health insurance

to do otherwise would be to break the law

another good example is Barack Obama

wants to raise tax rates

doesn't mean the Big O is a hypocrite if he doesn't voluntarily pay higher rates himself

it's a rare instance where Sir Barry follows the law

March 27, 2015 10:22 AM  
Anonymous disgusted with liberals said...

"Ted Cruz was against Obamacare before he was for it"

actually, he's still against it

as are most Americans

it was passed by legislative chicanery after it was clear the public was against it and the opposition party unanimously opposed

never has an entitlement been enacted in such a situation

the disgust Americans have for this situation is why republicans now control the House, the Senate, the majority of state legislatures, and the majority of governor's mansions

and why a Republican President in January 2017 will sign a repeal of Obamacare, passed by Congress

March 27, 2015 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"indeed, the government is currently, unconstitutionally, requiring it"

How soon they forget.

Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health-care law

March 27, 2015 10:33 AM  
Anonymous disgusted with liberals said...

John Roberts had it wrong

he said ACA was constitutional because the penalty was a tax

even Obama, former President of the Harvard Law review, disagreed with Roberts

Barry said it was definitely not a tax

Obama just thinks he has the power to infringe on the liberty of citizens any way he sees fit

the country has decided it would prefer to wait him out rather than impeach him because he's too incompetent to purposely cause any lasting damage anyway

meanwhile, the biggest rat of all is fleeing the sinking Democrat ship





March 27, 2015 10:39 AM  
Anonymous disgusted with liberals said...

the biggest rat is....

wait for it....

Harry Reid:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/27/harry_reid_wont_seek_re-election.html

March 27, 2015 10:41 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt,
Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt,
Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt,
Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt, Wyatt

March 27, 2015 12:20 PM  
Anonymous the big winner said...

reminds me of Jack Nicholson in The Shining

a great portrait of lunacy

looks like a similar situation in Saskatchewan

March 27, 2015 1:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

These orwellian named Religious “freedom” bills allow doctors and emergency medical technicians to refuse service to LGBT people. But its not the end of the world if the right to deny service ends up being EMTs who point, and laugh, and do nothing to save a transgender woman bleeding to death in the middle of the street. .

After all, why can't people just choose for themselves who they want to work for?

March 27, 2015 2:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And while we're at it, no one should be forced to work for the government against their will, collecting sales taxes, following safe food handling guidelines, meeting auto safety or fuel efficincy standards, or cleaning up pollution they make when they would rather just dump it in the river.

Let's return to Jim Crow as well while we're at it. If its okay to discriminate against people for the harmless characteristic of being gay then its okay to discriminate against people for the harmless characteristic of skin colour.

March 27, 2015 2:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Meanwhile an all time record high temperature of 63.5 F was recorded in Antarctica and Antarctica's massive ice shelves are shrinking at an accelerating rate.

During the study period's first half, to about 2003, the overall volume decline around Antarctica was small, with West Antarctica losses almost balanced out by gains in East Antarctica. After that, western losses accelerated and gains in the east ended.

Of course if the planet had stopped warming, or started cooling in 1998 as Wyatt/bad anonymous often claims we wouldn't be seeing the ice shelf melting increasing as of 2003.

Once again, Wyatt/bad anonymous is well aware that the planet has continued to warm since 1998, particularly the oceans which make up 90% of the heat storage capacity of the environment (thats why ocean levels have also risen at an accelerating pace since 1998) but his identity as a conservative republican is more important to him than the truth so he'll deny reality every chance he gets.

March 27, 2015 2:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

American Religious Leader Blasts "sinful" Climate Denial: "We are making war on the integrity of this planet".

This week, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church Katherine Jefferts Schori spoke out against people who denied the proven science behind climate change for political reasons or otherwise.

“The Judeo-Christian tradition has always called these motivations sinful,” she said at a Los Angeles event called The Climate Change Crisis. “It’s decidedly wrong to use resources that have been given into our collective care in ways that diminish the ability of others to share in abundant life.”

“We are making war on the integrity of this planet,” she continued “We were planted in this garden to care for it, literally to have dominion over its creatures. Dominion means caring for our island home.”

In an interview with The Guardian published on Tuesday, Jefferts Schori framed the issue as a moral one, condemning those who refused to accept the science:

“Episcopalians understand the life of the mind is a gift of God and to deny the best of current knowledge is not using the gifts God has given you,” she said. “In that sense, yes, it could be understood as a moral issue.”

“I think it is a very blind position. I think it is a refusal to use the best of human knowledge, which is ultimately a gift of God.”

“We are meant to love God and what God has created and to love our neighbors as ourselves,” she said in the speech. “Jesus insists that those who will enjoy abundant life are those who care for all neighbors, especially the ‘least of these’ — the hungry and thirsty, the imprisoned and sick — and that must include all the species that God has nurtured on this planet.”

March 27, 2015 2:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

When it comes to bigotry-motivated cruelty, denigration, and persecution of others, religion is, of course, usually the primary force driving it, and/or the primary source for validating it.

And now that TrueChristians™ are apparently on the cusp of losing on the most important single aspect in their overall persecution-crusade against us, they are on the verge of becoming lost and listless in a sea of equality. So now, in a desperate effort to keep the persecution alive and the money flowing, they are clamoring for states to pass persecution protection legislation so that their lives will continue to have meaning.

March 27, 2015 2:55 PM  
Anonymous merrily scary said...

"These orwellian named Religious “freedom” bills allow doctors and emergency medical technicians to refuse service to LGBT people. But its not the end of the world if the right to deny service ends up being EMTs who point, and laugh, and do nothing to save a transgender woman bleeding to death in the middle of the street."

alarmist and paranoid

there are common liabilities against anyone who refuses to help someone in life-threatening emergency

besides, the lunatic crowd wouldn't be happy if there were a medical exception

imposing on others is what the gay agenda is all about

if you're planning a gay "wedding", why would you want someone who doesn't support gay marriage to work on it?

because that's what the gay agenda is all about

they'd flock to wedding service companies whose owners don't believe in gay marriage just to impose

anyone can see that


March 27, 2015 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you're planning a gay "wedding", why would you want someone who doesn't support gay marriage to work on it?"

Unless that "someone who doesn't support gay marriage" lets the public know "we don't serve gays for their marriages," how is anyone supposed to know the advertised service is not offered to everyone who is getting married?

If you don't want to provide your marriage related (or any other) services to blacks, or women, or retirees, or gays, or whomever else your religion might say you should not serve, then prominently post a sign stating which groups you cannot serve due to your adherence to your constitutionally protected faith on your business so every prospective customer can know who you will and will not serve.

Who can name a religion that expects business owner/worker adherents to wait to spring their religiously determined refusal to provide their advertised services to certain groups until a person from that group ask for service?

Being unwilling to say which paying customers you will refuse to serve is not part of any religion I'm aware of.

March 27, 2015 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Record-Hot West Sees First 100-Degree Temperature of 2015; More Triple-Digit Heat Ahead

"The hottest weather so far this year has arrived in the West and will continue through the upcoming weekend. Thursday brought the year's first triple-digit temperature reading anywhere in the country when Death Valley, California, logged an official high of 101 degrees.

A ridge of high pressure will bring record warm temperatures to much of the West...

The warmth expands out of the Desert Southwest into the Pacific Northwest and Rockies through Friday as the ridge of high pressure slides into the West. Above-average temperatures will then spread across the West and into parts of the Plains this weekend..."


Winter 2014-15 Was Nation's 19th Warmest Despite Bitterly Cold February in East

"Despite a series of blizzards and record-breaking cold snaps in January and February, the winter of 2014-15 was warmer than average for the contiguous United States as a whole, according to data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Thanks in large part to persistent warm weather in the West, this winter – defined as the period from the start of December through the end of February – was the 19th-warmest of the past 120 winters over the Lower 48. Averaged together, temperatures across the country this winter were 2.1 Fahrenheit degrees above the 20th-century mean, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

This figure, however, masks very large differences in the outcomes for individual states. The West was intensely warm throughout the winter, pushing the states of Washington, California, Nevada, Utah and Arizona to their warmest winters on record since 1895.

For California, this winter was 1.5 degrees warmer than the previous warmest winter, which was just last year (2013-14). Last winter, in turn, had broken the previous record (1980-81) by 0.8 degree. While these margins may not seem large, they are exceptionally wide margins when considering average temperatures over a 90-day period. The temperature gap between this winter and the third-warmest winter (1980-81) is the same as the gap between the third-warmest and 30th-warmest winters.

The East, on the other hand, had an unusually chilly winter. However, because of a relatively mild December, the East was not as extremely cold as the West was extremely warm. No state had a record-cold winter or even a top-10 coldest winter. The state of New York had its 17th-coldest winter since 1895, a cooler ranking than any other state this winter...."

March 27, 2015 4:39 PM  
Anonymous seeing clearly said...

did you know that any scientist that doesn't agree with global warming theory is being systematically attacked in the style Joe McCarthy made famous in the 1950s?

this persecution taints the credibility of any research you read about global warming

if you disagree with the alarmists, you won't be a working scientist long

the exploitation of science by liberals in our time for political purposes will do down as a disgrace in history:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/kimberley-strassel-the-campus-climate-crusade-1427411529

March 27, 2015 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"did you know that any scientist that doesn't agree with global warming theory is being systematically attacked in the style Joe McCarthy made famous in the 1950s?"

No I didn't know that.

Which Republican Senator is acting as Joe McCarthy did and which Senate subcommittee chaired by that Senator has smeared these scientists causing "both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings?"

How many scientists have been declared "loyalty risks" and denied employment by Government agencies?

Show us one example of a climate denying scientist suffering what Joe McCarthy's victims suffered.

March 27, 2015 6:28 PM  
Anonymous disgusted by the gay agenda said...

"how is anyone supposed to know the advertised service is not offered to everyone who is getting married?"

given that it is fairly common that people mean man-woman unions when they say "marriage", you might want to call and ask

of course you know that

the real purpose is to force people to change the definition of marriage

you're not really worried that a gay won't be able to find marriage services available

or you could just use yelp.com

truth is, there will really not be any trouble finding someone who wants to do business

we live in a capitalist society and everyone's trying to make a buck

as a matter of fact, there is currently a boom in businesses like travel agencies and marriage services that cater exclusively to gays

"If you don't want to provide your marriage related (or any other) services to blacks, or women, or retirees,"

do you know of anyone not providing services to these people?

of course not

"or whomever else your religion might say you should not serve, then prominently post a sign stating which groups you cannot serve due to your adherence to your constitutionally protected faith on your business so every prospective customer can know who you will and will not serve"

why?

the last this country needs is having the government supervise personal interactions

"Who can name a religion that expects business owner/worker adherents to wait to spring their religiously determined refusal to provide their advertised services to certain groups until a person from that group ask for service?"

actually, I'm not aware of any religiously determined refusal to provide services unless providing services would amount to participation in immoral activity

everyone knows that society has traditionally considered marriage between a man and a woman

we are tolerant enough to allow differing viewpoints and gay advocates now want government to impose a viewpoint

if you want to go down this road, you won't have anyone else to blame if it goes in a direction you didn't anticipate

"Being unwilling to say which paying customers you will refuse to serve is not part of any religion I'm aware of."

don't know who you're arguing with

I don't think any people who don't want to participate in gay weddings would make any secret of it

doubt if they want signs referring to homosexuality or other types of immorality in their windows though

sounds like they're being set up for a gay kristallnacht

March 27, 2015 6:31 PM  
Anonymous crystal clear said...

"Show us one example of a climate denying scientist suffering what Joe McCarthy's victims suffered"

I provided the link, a-hole

read it

March 27, 2015 6:36 PM  
Anonymous home of Michael Jackson gets it right said...

Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith.

The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.

One need look no further than the recent litigation concerning the Affordable Care Act. A private business and our own University of Notre Dame had to file lawsuits challenging provisions that required them to offer insurance coverage in violation of their religious views.


Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—limiting government action that would infringe upon religion to only those that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest and in the least restrictive means.

Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action. At present, nineteen states—including our neighbors in Illinois and Kentucky—have adopted Religious Freedom Restoration statutes. And in eleven additional states, the courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action.

In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those 30 states and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action.

This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.

Indiana is rightly celebrated for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance, and values of our people, and that will never change. Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation, we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith.

March 27, 2015 6:41 PM  
Anonymous hoosier happy said...

I like Indiana

March 27, 2015 10:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You did not provide a link.

You provided a URL, and it goes to an opinion piece behind a paywall only subscribers can read.

Knock off the juvenile name-calling.



March 27, 2015 10:38 PM  
Anonymous hip hip hooray!! said...

the King Rat, the guy who did more to harm his country than other sleazeball, is leaving Washington

good riddance

there's hope for America yet

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416100/good-riddance-dirty-harry-charles-c-w-cooke

March 27, 2015 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swift Corporate Backlash Follows Indiana Governor Pence’s Decision To Sign Anti-Gay Law

As Final Four nears, NCAA opposes Indiana religious freedom law

March 27, 2015 10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do all the trees in Michigan lean to the South?

Because Indiana sucks!

March 27, 2015 11:02 PM  
Anonymous thanks for your help said...

"Swift Corporate Backlash Follows Indiana Governor Pence’s Decision To Sign Anti-Gay Law

As Final Four nears, NCAA opposes Indiana religious freedom law"

proof positive that a law is not needed

all the businessmen want it

so, any business that is not serving gays is an outlier and no threat that requires a law infringing on the rights of citizens

March 28, 2015 12:12 AM  
Anonymous the comes around, goes around said...

pro-family organizers are setting up a program to organize organizations to have conventions in Indiana in the coming year

similar to the wide-spread support and extra business Chik-Fil-A got when the gay agenda launched its attack on that company, look for the formerly looked over city of Indianapolis to get a tremendous boost

March 28, 2015 8:20 AM  
Anonymous does the truth have an advocate? said...

interesting story about guy who wrote an article explaining that extrapolating past data doesn't produce a scenario of catastrophic global warming

you can only do so by creating new models

scientists agree with him and then viciously attacked demonstrating, on this issue anyway, that the scientific establishment is more concerned with advocacy than truth

http://www.stumblingontruth.com/articles/Imagine%20if%20they%20disagreed%20with%20us.pdf

March 28, 2015 8:34 AM  
Anonymous barnstormer said...

lunatic fringe liberal gay advocates and Hollywood celebs are going ballistic over Indiana new law protecting religious freedom

about thirty other states already have such laws and there's a Federal law, signed by Clinton, saying the same

problem is that a court has ruled that Clinton's law only pertains to Federal laws, thus the need for protection on a state level
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html

March 28, 2015 8:42 AM  
Anonymous white hot chili pepper said...

you may have heard the outrage against some gay Italian handbag makers who said they agree with straights that we shouldn't make artificial babies so gays will have some

boycotts and denunciations and shunning have ensued

here, Bill Maher points out the absurdity when ISIS is tossing gays off buildings in Syria

how many gays are signing up to go fight ISIS?

here's another one he didn't point out:

when an Oscar winner during her speech spoke out against unequal pay for women, gay advocacy groups issued statements after the show denouncing her for not mentioning the plight of transgenders

Bill, you're up:

"Don't throw the synthetic baby out with the bathwater. Last week you may have seen that the iconic designers Dolce & Gabbana caused a raucous when they said that even though they are proudly gay, but when it comes to how you make bambino, they're old school Italians who don't approve of what they said is "synthetic children," because you know synthetic, they just don't breath like cotton...

Yes, we joke about everybody here and that's something that a lot of liberals have forgotten about how to do. For folks who take such pride in their love of diversity liberals seem to tolerate none in their own ranks. I don't necessarily agree with Dolce & Gabbana, but what is the point of attacking people who are 95% on your side? Give them a break. They're from Sicily -- the same place Justice Scalia comes from and if you want to protest someone who doesn't support gays, start with him.

But no, it's easier to get all faked outrage over the hateful anti-gay speech from two men who bedazzle codpieces for a living. Ellen, Martina [Navratilova], they were all furious. Courtney Love said she planned to burn her Dolce & Gabbana, and then breath in the melting polyester because, hey, you never know might get you high.

But Dame Elton John was the angriest of all, tweeting, 'How dare you refer to my children as synthetic? My hair yes, but my children.' He recorded a protest song called "I Won't Let My Son Go Down On You." And called for a boycott. Really? You can't sell handbags now if you only agree with Elton John almost all the time. In Syria ISIS is throwing gay people off buildings. Maybe there are bigger battles to fight?

We liberals always talk about how the right needs to rein in its crazies but the left has some crazy reining in to do too. Unless you think I am creating a false equivalency, I'm not. Because on the right, unlike the left, they have actually been able to carve out a place for their crazies; unfortunately, that place is elected government.

All the more reason not to drive people into their arms with crazy political correctness. For example, The Economist last week drew the wrath of the liberal website Media Matters who said that their jalapeño flag cover was "the sort of stereotype that ignores Latinos as a multi-faceted community and relegates them to chili-pepper-consuming constituency." Hey, Media Matters, can I say one thing to you? Shut the fuck up. No Hispanic looked at this cover and said, "I've been wronged." They looked at it and said, "Mmm, yum, jalapeños."

March 28, 2015 8:54 AM  
Anonymous go to jail free card said...

this is a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Hillary needs to be prosecuted:

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/237276-benghazi-panel-chairman-clinton-wiped-private-email-server-clean

March 28, 2015 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the disgust Americans have for this situation is why republicans now control the House, the Senate, the majority of state legislatures, and the majority of governor's mansions"

Voter turnout in 2014 was the lowest since WWII

The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans

Republicans Got Only 52 Percent of the Vote in House Races
How did they end up with 57 percent of the seats?


As GOP celebrates win, no sign of narrowing gender, age gaps

New Congress has approval rating of 16 percent: poll

Obama Averages 42.6% Job Approval in Year Six

March 28, 2015 10:01 AM  
Anonymous izzy guilty said...

that's right!

is

March 28, 2015 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Call it what it is said...

Religious Freedom? Nope, Just Plain Old Discrimination

"....It is difficult to understand how this is not akin to the fervently held religious beliefs that the races should not “mix” in marriage, and the anti-miscegenation laws that emanated from those beliefs. Of course, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down those laws as unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. How is this any different from a 1960s lunch counter owner denying service to African Americans because of his religious beliefs (widely held at the time) that “Negroes” were lesser human beings and citizens than white folks?..."

March 28, 2015 10:17 AM  
Anonymous riding the rising tide said...

"Voter turnout in 2014 was the lowest since WWII"

I know. Ted Cruz has a plan to energize evangelicals to vote. They didn't vote in large numbers in the last two elections.

Meanwhile, liberals are tired and disheartened after pouring so much hope into the failed Obama presidency. They won't go through the trouble again.

Obama knows this. It's why he wants to make voting mandatory. It took a lot of money for him to bribe people to vote for him last time

"The Senate's 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans"

A classic case of liberals lying while technically telling the truth. This is a number spread over three elections, dating back to before everyone learned Obama lied about Obamacare.

"Republicans Got Only 52 Percent of the Vote in House Races
How did they end up with 57 percent of the seats?"

Not that far off. It's the way it works out sometimes. True, districts are drawn to GOP advantage. That's the way the constitution works. If you win state legislatures and governors mansions, you resolve the benefit of the doubt to your side. It makes democracy more stable and deliberate and concentrates power in the states.

Those founding fathers were genius!

"As GOP celebrates win, no sign of narrowing gender, age gaps"

liberal spin

"New Congress has approval rating of 16 percent: poll"

a joint poll of over 500 people is meaningless

the lowest personal approval rating in Congress is Harry Reid and getting out while the getting is good

just last year, he was telling everyone he would die in office

"Obama Averages 42.6% Job Approval in Year Six"

not stellar

Scott Walker has won three nationalized elections in four years

in a blue state

March 28, 2015 10:21 AM  
Anonymous overarchery said...

"How is this any different from a 1960s lunch counter owner denying service to African Americans because of his religious beliefs (widely held at the time) that “Negroes” were lesser human beings and citizens than white folks?..."

well, no one is suggesting gays be denied services in an overarching way

only when they ask someone to participate is something considered immoral, such as gay "marriage"

you haven't answered why gays wouldn't prefer to receive wedding services from someone who support gay "marriage"

March 28, 2015 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gallup reports: No Sign of Improvement in Americans' -- and Republicans' -- Views of Congress

"The venerable General Social Survey results for 2014 confirm the findings from Gallup and other surveys that Americans have become significantly less confident in all branches of their government. This goes along with Gallup reports showing that Americans say dysfunctional government is the most important problem facing the United States.

As we would perhaps expect, given these dismal ratings, Americans' approval of the job being done by Congress is also low, at 18% for March. This is not the lowest in history; that honor goes to the 9% congressional job approval rating recorded in November 2013, after the federal government shutdown. But 18% is low by any standard, and this low level of approval has been consistent for years.

One interesting finding about approval of Congress at this juncture in history is the flat approval ratings we find among both Republicans and Democrats. In Gallup's March survey, only one percentage point separates the approval rating of Republicans/Republican leaners from that given by Democrats/Democratic leaners. The small group of Americans who are independents in the sense that they don't lean toward one party or the other give Congress both a lower approval and lower disapproval rating than others, mainly because almost one-quarter of this group are so detached from the system that they don't have an opinion about Congress at all.

Everything else being equal, a reasonable expectation would be that, by this point, Republicans' approval of Congress would have risen significantly. Their party took over control of the Senate in the November 2014 elections, which gave Republicans control of both bodies of Congress for the first time since 2006. Nine years ago, back in March 2006 for example, when Republicans also controlled both houses of Congress, there was a 31-point spread between the rating given to Congress by Republicans (43%) and Democrats (16%). Similarly, by way of contrast, six years ago when Democrats were in control of both the Senate and the House in March 2009 -- Democrats' approval of the job Congress was doing was at 55%, compared with 21% among Republicans.

Every situation is different, and the partisan ratings for Congress in the month of March of various years reflect the history that leads up to that point, including what's happening in the presidency at that time, the overall approval of Congress and other factors. Plus, it may be that rank-and-file Republicans' views of Congress will improve in the weeks and months ahead. But, at this point, there is no sign of "joy in Mudville" among Republicans when we ask them to rate Congress, even though they now control it.

Several issues are likely at play here. First, there are differences among subgroups of Republicans in congressional approval. Conservative Republicans tend to be more negative than are moderate/liberal Republicans. I combined February and March 2015 Gallup surveys to increase sample sizes, and found that 27% of moderate and liberal Republicans approved of the job Congress is doing, compared with 18% of conservative Republicans. This split isn't huge, but enough to suggest that Republicans' approval of Congress is, to some extent, being held back by the dissatisfaction of conservative Republicans -- most likely because they believe Congress is not being rigid enough in sticking to principle and refusing to compromise....

March 28, 2015 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Obamacare five years later.... said...

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers posted an image on her official Facebook page, slamming the Affordable Care Act on the fifth anniversary of President Obama signing it into law. She asked constituents to share their Obamacare nightmare stories and well, the response probably wasn't what she expected. Below are a small sample of the comments constituents left on her page:

- My story is that I once knew 7 people who couldn't get health insurance. Now they all have it, thanks to the ACA and President Obama, and their plans are as good as the one my employer provides--and they pay less for them. Now, that's not the kind of story you want to hear. You want to hear made-up horror stories. I don't know anyone with one of those stories.

- I work for cancer care northwest. We actually have more patients with insurance and fewer having to choose treatment over bankruptcy. Cathy, I'm a die hard conservative and I'm asking you to stop just slamming Obamacare. Fix it, change it or come up with a better idea! Thanks

- With Obamacare, I saved 300 bucks a month premium.. I have more coverage.. I like ObamaCare and can't wait til we go to the next step... Medicare for ALL.

Click here to continue reading these heartfelt messages.

March 28, 2015 12:11 PM  
Anonymous splash it all said...

"there is no sign of "joy in Mudville" among Republicans when we ask them to rate Congress, even though they now control it"

yeah, Democrats are still mucking things up with Harry Reid threatening filibuster unless gets things 100% and even then because he thinks Repubs will be blamed

last week, even Pelosi was furious with him

take the child trafficking bill

Reid was refusing to go along because the bill specified none of the money would pay for abortion

never mind that such language is already law and this was simply clarifying that standing law wasn't being changed

Reid thought he and his media minions could pin it all on Repubs

the backlash is probably why he's resigning

even his own party is now disgusted with him

"Several issues are likely at play here"

actually, there's one

nothing can get done because of Dem obstruction

Repubs should eliminate the filibuster until Reid leaves

there budget bill now only needs a majority vote to get out of reconciliation, which now means Obama will have to veto it and should the country who has been getting in the way of progress

March 28, 2015 1:06 PM  
Anonymous willin' said...

TTfers

they're gettin' that sinkin' feelin' now

the gig's up

the gay agenda is goin' down in flames

you betcha

March 28, 2015 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do people still say "the gay agenda"?

March 28, 2015 6:13 PM  
Anonymous llaughing at the Hindenburg agenda said...

only when they want a good laugh

it's going so bad for the gay agenda

a couple of years ago, the governor of Arizona was bullied by gays into vetoing a religious freedom bill

this week, the governor of Indiana listened to the same hysteria from the usual suspects

and then he got a big smile on his face and signed it

next up, the Supreme Court will clarify that they didn't mean to make gay "marriage" a constitutional right

which will instantly make it illegal in most of America

that thing Barack Obama LIED about

oh, and Chik-Fil-A will soon pen it's first place in Manhattan

March 28, 2015 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Gov. Pence's agenda needs "clarification" legislation said...

Indy Star reports: Swarens: Gov. Mike Pence to push for clarification of 'religious freedom' law

Tim Swarens, tim.swarens@indystar.com 10:38 a.m. EDT March 29, 2015

"Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to "clarify" that Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"I support religious liberty, and I support this law," Pence said in an exclusive interview. "But we are in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend to see if there's a way to clarify the intent of the law."

The governor, although not ready to provide details on what the new bill will say, said he expects the legislation to be introduced into the General Assembly this coming week.

Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, "That's not on my agenda."

Amid the deepest crisis of his political career, Pence said repeatedly that the intense blowback against the new law is the result of a "misunderstanding driven by misinformation."

He adamantly insisted that RFRA will not open the door to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians. But he did acknowledge that Indiana's image — and potentially its economic health — has been hurt badly by the controversy.

I spoke with Pence on the same day that thousands of people rallied at the Statehouse in opposition to the law. And the same day that Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle announced that his company will abandon a deal with the state and city to expand the company's headquarters in Indianapolis because of RFRA's passage.

Oesterle's statement is a telling sign that the outrage over RFRA isn't limited only to the political left. Oesterle directed Republican Mitch Daniels' 2004 campaign for governor. And it's a signal that the damage from the RFRA debacle could be extensive.

Behind the scenes, Pence and his team have been scrambling to mitigate that damage — both to the state and to the governor's political career.

Pence said, for example, that he had a "cordial and productive" conversation with Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, who announced shortly after Pence signed the RFRA legislation on Thursday that the company will cancel all corporate-related travel to Indiana. That conversation, however, has not led to a reversal of the Salesforce decision...."

March 29, 2015 11:39 AM  
Anonymous so liberals want an economic war, huh? said...

"Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, "That's not on my agenda.""

there you have it

when the gangrenous parts of society lie, it's a good idea to clarify

of course, this is already a law in nineteen states and a Federal law

additionally, in about a dozen other states it's essentially the law due to judicial rulings

so why is this suddenly a "fast-spreading political firestorm"?

it isn't in any way that matters

and, as much as liberals whine about the Koch brothers, the real money power is all the tech and hipster companies that support a much more liberal agenda than most of the country

but if they want an economic boycott war, hope they're ready to lose a lot

oh dear, yelp.com pulled out of Indiana

don't let it get out

the common citizen could put them out of business PDQ but just logging in another similar site

March 29, 2015 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes but so is this Final rule to protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity announced by US Labor Department while Indiana has no such legal protections and Governor Pence has proudly stated when "Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, "That's not on my agenda.""

He only protects heterosexuals, not homosexuals from discrimination.

Your favorite Moonie rag reported recently:

"Not all RFRA bills are identical, but they share the goal of prohibiting laws that place a “substantial burden” on an individual’s free exercise of religion, barring a “compelling government interest.” In those cases, the government must use “the least restrictive means.”

Another 11 states have RFRA-like protections stemming from state court decisions.

But things have changed since 1993, including the political landscape. The 2009 Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate has prompted a string of lawsuits from the owners of companies such as Hobby Lobby, who say providing certain contraceptives that act as abortifacients violates their religious beliefs.

Mr. Pence cited the ACA mandate in his signing statement. “Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action,” the Republican governor said.

Another host of issues has arisen with the widespread legalization of same-sex marriage. A number of Christian photographers,bakers and florists are fighting lawsuits over their refusal to provide services for gay weddings on religious grounds.

Those advocating for RFRA in Indiana said the law would offer needed First Amendment protections for such business owners, while the National LGBTQ Task Force argued that the Indiana bill “abuses religion as a cynical excuse to legalize open discrimination against LGBTQ people.”

As Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin can attest, however, such laws offer no guarantees. New Mexico passed a RFRA in 2000, but the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against Ms. Huguenin in 2013 after she was sued by a gay couple, saying the RFRA only applies to cases in which the government is a party.

Critics point out that the Indiana RFRA is broader than other state and federal laws, most significantly because it applies “regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

..Mr. Pence, who signed the bill in a private ceremony with lawmakers and Jewish, Hindu and Christian religious leaders, has repeatedly denied that the Indiana RFRA will allow discrimination, saying, “[I]f I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it...”


< wink wink >

March 29, 2015 12:52 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"Do people still say "the gay agenda"?"

Unfortunately, yes. It’s usually used by religious supremacists to make the desire of LGBT Americans to be treated equally under the law seem like some sort of nefarious attack.

Thinking that wanting to be treated equally is an attack gives clue to their character; to those who worship the god of pride, the feeling of superiority is paramount. Though they are usually equal opportunity bigots, hating LGBTs is unique in two ways. First, they think they get points from God for hating us -- the more they hate us, the more God loves them (as though infinitely isn’t enough). Second, they can express their hatred openly by labeling it "religious," thus informing everyone else how much more special they are.

As our equality agenda comes true, their opportunities to openly dehumanize us diminish. And the more their "I’m better than you are" syndrome deteriorates the more furious they become.

Our equal treatment under the law is such a threat to them they now feel compelled to pass "religious freedom" AKA license to discriminate laws. However, those are just a start, nothing short of criminalizing all things LGBT will satisfy. By encouraging as much abroad, it is clear where their hearts lie.

And given that they are willing to imprison us based on nothing more than their own thoughts and fantasies of "ick" about us, I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that they are perfectly willing to go that extra mile and attempt to legalize the genocide of LGBTs. Surely justifying it based on Leviticus 20:13 and/or the many "nefarious" aspects to our agenda (like wanting to wed).

As ego addicts, I can see how putting us to death would be something akin to a spiritual orgasm for them. It would be the ultimate conquest, life vs. death, good vanquishing evil.

They’ve proven that they want to make our lives hell, I think they love hating us so much they want us to be condemned to eternal hell as well.

All in Jesus’ name of course.

March 29, 2015 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The HATE agenda is on the losing side.

#BoycottIndiana trends #1 on Twitter

"We already had this conversation. You don't get to decide who can sit at the lunch counter."

March 29, 2015 2:56 PM  
Anonymous That which we call hate by any other name still stinks said...

Pence added that the measure would apply only to disputes between individuals when government action is involved. He said similar laws for the federal government and more than a dozen states has never been used to undermine anti-discrimination laws.

The governor said he expects additional legislation this week to clarify the intent of the law.

One idea under consideration is a proposal to add sexual orientation as a protected class under the state’s civil rights laws.

“I will not push for that,” Pence said. “That’s not on my agenda, and that’s not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana.”

Host George Stephanopoulos ended the interview by asking for a yes or no answer on whether it should be legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

“You’re following the mantra of the last week online, and you’re trying to make this issue about something else,” Pence said. “What I am for is protecting … the religious liberty of Hoosiers.”

March 29, 2015 3:41 PM  
Anonymous I'm younger than I once was said...

"The Chinese government continues to perpetrate particularly severe violations of religious freedom. For Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims, conditions are worse now than at any time in the past decade. Independent Catholics and Protestants face arrests, fines, and the shuttering of their places of worship. Practitioners of Falun Gong, as well as other Buddhist, folk religionist, and Protestant groups deemed “superstitious” or “evil cults,” face long jail terms, forced renunciations of faith, and torture in detention, and the government has not sufficiently answered accusations of psychiatric experimentation and organ harvesting. Based on these systematic, egregious, ongoing abuses, USCIRF again recommends that China be designated as a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, in 2014. The State Department has designated China as a CPC since 1999."

the latest report on China from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

of course, many of the businesses pulling out of Indiana, home of some of the friendliest people on Earth, are happily doing business in China

there's a lot of BS going around the media

typical interview question: should it be legal to discriminate in Indiana?

a question implying that this is something new and abhorrent

truthfully, it is and always has been legal to discriminate everywhere in America

occasionally, in extreme circumstances, it becomes illegal to discriminate against certain specially protected classes

there has been some debate about whether those who practice homosexuality should constitute a protected class

in Indiana, they've decided that discrimination against this class is fine in situations where providing service to a member of the class would constitute participation in practices the server's religion consider immoral

it's perfectly reasonable, and only applicable in rare circumstances

no religion says, for example, says that a doctor can't perform bypass surgery on someone who has committed homosexual acts, or any other sin, for that matter

won't happen as a result of this bill

someone, however, may decide that their religious beliefs forbid them from celebrating homosexual "marriage" and, thus, wouldn't allow such a couple to use their restaurant for their wedding reception

remember, discrimination laws are only to allow a persecuted class life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Indiana's law does nothing to preclude that

the potential damage of government intervening in personal relationships is much more extreme than any inconvenience of, in rare instances, finding another venue for a wedding reception

here's Bob Dylan:

"some self-ordained professor's tongue

too serious to fool

spouted out that liberty

is just equality

in school

Equality

I spoke the word

as if a wedding vow

but I was so much older then

I'm younger than that now"

March 30, 2015 11:07 AM  
Anonymous a dscriminating society said...

"Host George Stephanopoulos ended the interview by asking for a yes or no answer on whether it should be legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians."

the answer is yes, unless they are part of a protected class

they shouldn't be

it is legal to discriminate against anyone unless they are part of a protected class

many people are confused and think that business owners are legally obligated to serve anyone demands service

but that's an infringement of freedom

so, if I, and as far as I know I'm not part of a protected class, walked into a butcher shop and asked for a couple of filets

the owner can refuse to sell them to me for any reason he pleases

he might not like my voice, my clothes, thinks I'm too short or fat or blond, thinks I'm too sarcastic

and he legally owes me no explanation

I'm not protected from discrimination by law

the proliferation of designated protected classes since the sixties is an unfortunate byproduct of a, probably necessary, decision to grant protected status to African Americans

there is currently no reason for any designated protected classes in our very open, civil, and inclusive society

March 30, 2015 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

of course, many of the businesses pulling out of Indiana, home of some of the friendliest people on Earth, are happily doing business in China

Yeah, there's plenty of money to be made in China -- ask Mitt Romney.

Revealed: Romney’s Bain Capital Invested in Grotesque Chinese Sweatshop, Detailed at Boca Raton Fundraiser

March 30, 2015 2:29 PM  
Anonymous the dim sum of hypocrisy said...

why ask Mitt? he's not playing the boycott game and discriminating against those he disagrees with

ask hypocritical liberal-run companies why they are boycotting Indiana, smack in America's heartland, because they will permit religious bakers to opt out of participating in gay "weddings" and revving up business in China, violating the human rights of over a billion, imprisoning and torturing thought and speech

March 30, 2015 2:51 PM  
Anonymous hip-o-grits said...

the hypocrisy of "liberals" is amazing

they advocate using the coercive powers of government to compel our fellow citizens to participate in rites that violate their religious beliefs

in the 90s, Bill Clinton signed the Indiana type of law for Federal purposes

about 20 states have similar laws already

here's a question for the hypocrites:

can you name one instance where a gay couple was denied service in a restaurant under a Religious Freedom Act?

March 30, 2015 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And which businesses do you think are pulling up Indiana roots and "revving up business in China?"

NCAA?

Angie's list?

Yelp?

Lilly?

Apple?

Disciples of Christ?

The City of Seattle?

Butler University, DePauw University and Indiana University?

NBA and the Pacers?

The State of Connecticut?"

Gen Con?

SalesForce.com?



March 30, 2015 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

can you name one instance where a gay couple was denied service in a restaurant under a Religious Freedom Act??

Can you name a religion that has a rule "do not feed the LGBTIQs?"

March 30, 2015 4:14 PM  
Anonymous no worries, Barry baby said...

no, I can't

all the more reason why no one should have an objection to Indiana's law

in no state where this law exist has any gay suffered any type of hardship as a result

btw, I fell bad about dissing Barack now

look at this nice e-mail he sent me:

"Friend --

I hope you'll enter the contest for the chance to meet me backstage next month.

If I have the opportunity, I'd love to say thank you.

The work you do, and have done for years, makes the grassroots movement powerful. You've helped change what it means to get involved and fight for what you believe in.

Don't wait -- make sure you enter for the chance to fly with a guest to D.C. to meet with me:

http://my.barackobama.com/Have-Your-Moment-Today

Thank you,

Barack Obama"

I guess he must really appreciates all the advice I've been posting online for him!!

March 30, 2015 4:42 PM  
Anonymous chopstick hypocrisy said...

"And which businesses do you think are pulling up Indiana roots and "revving up business in China?""

see you have salesforce on the list

here's the address of their China office, if you want to ask their views on gay rights?

salesforce.com Information Technology (Shanghai) Co, Ltd.
Bejing Branch
27, 11/F North tower, Kerry Center
1 Guang Hua Road
Bejing, 100020
PRC

March 30, 2015 4:52 PM  
Anonymous those lousy hypocrites said...

that's right, folks!

salesforce, believing it has no place criticizing human rights violations in China, maintains an office there but feels it has no choice but to pull out of Indiana because they let bakers decide what kind of celebrations they want to be part of

from Forbes:

"Business leaders on Thursday spoke out against a controversial law passed in Indiana Thursday that could give businesses the green light to deny service to same-sex couples.

The loudest opposotion so far has come from Marc Benioff, founder and CEO of business tech company Salesforce, who declared on Twitter that his company would boycott the state altogether.

“Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination. http://t.co/SvTwyCHxvE

— Marc Benioff (@Benioff) March 26, 2015

The outcry is in response to Indiana’s Republican Gov. Mike Pence signing into law a “religious freedom” bill that will free individuals and business owners from abiding by state and local laws that “substantially” burden their exercise of religion, unless the government can prove that it has a compelling interest and is doing so by the least restrictive means.

Supporters of the measure say it will protect people and business owners with strong religious convictions from government intrusion.

Opponents, meanwhile, claim it paves the way for discrimination, especially against gays and lesbians."

March 30, 2015 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Salesforce has been doing business in China for years and will continue doing so, just like Mitt Romney's Bain baby.

Pence's stupidity had nothing to do with Romney or SalesForce making money in China all these years, but Pence has now brought Indiana down closer to the level of China and its lousy record on human rights and freedoms.

March 30, 2015 5:32 PM  
Anonymous foorbidden city v. forbidden state said...

Mitt is irrelevant

he does business in both China and Indiana

the point, you idiot, is that salesforce is making a big show of having to leave Indiana because of this violation of rights and yet has never had any qualms about doing business in China, where human rights violations aren't alleged, human rights are

obviously, their stance in Indiana is for show

they call it hypocrisy

it's common among liberals

March 30, 2015 9:21 PM  
Anonymous the hype is ripe said...

"Pence has now brought Indiana down closer to the level of China and its lousy record on human rights and freedoms"

such hyperbole, it would fit perfectly in the Onion

can we have one, just one, story of any mistreatment of gays in any of the 19 states who already have this law?

March 30, 2015 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here you go: Enjoy!

Listen: Indiana Restaurant Owner Says He Discriminates Against Gays, Glad The Law Supports Him Now

"A restaurant owner in Indiana called into a local radio station's morning talk show to confess he happily discriminates against gay people, and he's glad the law now supports this practice.

Indianapolis morning radio talk show Kyle & Rachel on RadioNOW 100.9 asked listeners Friday morning to weigh in on Indiana's new anti-gay "religious freedom" law, signed by Gov. Mike Pence Thursday.

The hosts were a bit shocked to hear one caller, Ryan, who says he owns a local restaurant, readily and happily admit that he discriminates against gay people. Ryan, who several times refused to identify which restaurant he owns and manages, told the radio hosts that he thinks he'll make more money if he turns away gay customers because he would rather they leave his restaurant than his seemingly non-gay, anti-gay customers leave.

Ryan, as you can hear in the audio above, described one evening when he was nearing the closing hour but still open for business, and a seemingly gay couple entered. He says he lied and told them there was something broken in the kitchen so he couldn't make them anything.

So much for his (false) claim that he turns away gay people because he thinks he'll make more money serving straight people.

At the end of the night, there were likely few people in the restaurant at all, and if the kitchen was almost closed, that gay couple was likely his last customer for the night. So, he just turned them away because he doesn't like gay people – not because he wants to make more money.

At least he was being honest – if not to himself."


Did you hear an objection based on his religion?

No? Me either. Not a word about his faith but plenty about who he hates.

Jason Hanna And Joe Riggs, Texas Gay Fathers, Denied Legal Parenthood Of Twin Sons

"It’s heartbreaking to think that a state has erased the parents of children and put a family in legal jeopardy, simply because of discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. But that’s what happened to a gay couple in Texas after what they described as the "magical" birth of their twin boys.

Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs are the proud fathers of Lucas and Ethan, who were born in April, after they'd connected with a surrogate mom, CharLynn.

Each of the men is a biological father to one of the babies.

Only the surrogate mother — who has no biological relationship to the boys, since embryos were transferred to her — is on the birth certificates. In essence, the men are not legally defined as the parents of their own children...

March 31, 2015 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alabama Same-Sex Couple’s Marriage Recognized, But Joint Adoption Still Denied

"Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand are returning to court in Alabama. After successfully petitioning the Court to require the state to recognize their 2008 same-sex marriage from California, they were then denied a joint adoption based on the same ban on same-sex marriage...."

5 LGBT Workers Who Experienced Legal Workplace Discrimination

".... 1. Mia Macy explains how anti-transgender discrimination caused her to lose a job for which she was fully qualified:

2. Sam Hall discusses the verbal and physical harassment he experienced when coworkers discovered he was gay:

3. Kylar Broadus recounts the unreasonable demands from his employer immediately after he began transitioning from female to male:

4. Kimya Afi Ayodele describes the inappropriate questions her interviewer asked about her relationship status and how she was explicitly fired because she was lesbian:

5. Brooke Waits enlightens Members of Congress how she went from being a highly-praised employee to out of a job on the basis of sexual orientation:..."


Just because you enjoy keeping your head firmly buried in the sand, doesn't mean discrimination doesn't happen.

March 31, 2015 8:34 AM  
Anonymous t fot texas, i for indiana said...

"Here you go: Enjoy!"

you didn't provide an example of a gay who suffered mistreatment because of this type of law in states where it had been enacted

this is a story from Indiana before the law passed

since he didn't claim religious objection either so it wouldn't apply going forward either

truth is, Indiana doesn't define homosexual as a protected class so discrimination would be perfectly with or without this law, except for a few localities

all the law does is protect the religious freedom of business owners in those few localities

this person however, who may do business in one of those localities, said he would discriminate regardless of the law and voiced no religious motivation

you still need to find an example in one of the 19 states where someone has suffered harm

honestly, not getting into the occasional restaurant is not much of a hardship anyway

happens to me all the time

I just find another one

there are thousands of restaurants in Indianapolis

until denying gays service becomes widespread, there is no need for legislation

freedom trumps

as for the Texas case, you haven't provided all the details, certainly not enough to ascertain what's going on

generally, hospitals place whoever the mother names as the father on the birth certificate

I doubt Texas doesn't do so if the father is gay

March 31, 2015 8:41 AM  
Anonymous sense and sensibility said...

In the increasingly bitter battle between religious liberty and the liberal political agenda, religion is losing. Witness the media and political wrath raining down upon Indiana because the state dared to pass an allegedly anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The question fair-minded Americans should ask before casting the first stone is who is really being intolerant.

The Indiana law is a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that passed 97-3 in the Senate and that Bill Clinton signed in 1993. Both the federal and Indiana laws require courts to administer a balancing test when reviewing cases that implicate the free exercise of religion.

To wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest. Indiana’s law adds a provision that offers a potential religious defense in private disputes, but then four federal appellate circuits have also interpreted the federal statute to apply to private disputes.

The federal RFRA followed the Supreme Court’s Employment Division v. Smith ruling in 1990 that abandoned its 30-year precedent of reviewing religious liberty cases under strict scrutiny. Congress responded with RFRA, which merely reasserted longstanding First Amendment protections.

In 1997 the Supreme Court limited RFRA’s scope to federal actions. So 19 states including such cultural backwaters as Connecticut, Rhode Island and Illinois followed with copy-cat legislation, and Indiana is the 20th. Courts in 11 states have extended equally vigorous protections.

March 31, 2015 9:08 AM  
Anonymous sense and sensibility said...

Indiana was an outlier before the new law because neither its laws nor courts unambiguously protected religious liberty. Amish horse-drawn buggies could be required to abide by local traffic regulations. Churches could be prohibited from feeding the homeless under local sanitation codes. The state Attorney General even ruled Indiana Wesleyan University, a Christian college which hires on the basis of religion, ineligible for state workforce training grants.

In February, 16 prominent First Amendment scholars, some of whom support same-sex marriage, backed Indiana’s legislation. “General protection for religious liberty is important precisely because it is impossible to legislate in advance for all the ways in which government might burden the free exercise of religion,” they explained.

That hasn’t stopped the cultural great and good from claiming Indiana added the religious defense in private disputes as a way to target gays. If this is Indiana’s purpose, and there’s no evidence it is, this is unlikely to work.

The claim is that this would empower, say, florists or wedding photographers to refuse to work a gay wedding on religious grounds. But under the RFRA test, such a commercial vendor would still have to prove that his religious convictions were substantially burdened.

And he would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent, a tribute to the increasing tolerance of American society toward gays, lesbians, the transgendered, you name it.

The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage.

Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party. That’s the only way to explain the born-again opportunism of Hillary Clinton, who tweeted: “Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn’t discriminate against ppl bc of who they love.”

By that standard, Mrs. Clinton discriminated against gays because she opposed gay marriage until March 2013. But now she wants to be seen as leading the new culture war against the intolerant right whose views she recently held.

The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.

Liberals used to understand that RFRA, with its balancing test, was a good-faith effort to help society compromise on contentious moral disputes. That liberals are renouncing it 20 years after celebrating it says more about their new intolerance than about anyone in Indiana.

March 31, 2015 9:09 AM  
Anonymous wise guy said...

interesting polls out today:

1. Hillary had been leading most polls for President but her e-mail destruction and lying about foreign contributors to the Clinton Foundation are taking a toll

in key swing states, most voters say she is dishonest and she trails Rand Paul in Pennsylvania and Jeb Bush in Florida

2. while a majority of Americans approve of nuclear negotiations with Iran, only 29% think Obama should have final approval; 62% think Congress should

the gig is up for the over-reaching gay agenda

March 31, 2015 9:17 AM  
Anonymous paint rainbows all over your blues said...

"Just because you enjoy keeping your head firmly buried in the sand, doesn't mean discrimination doesn't happen."

I never said discrimination doesn't happen

I said:

1. it hasn't happened as a result of the Federal Religious Freedom Act or any of the 19 similar state statutes or 11 states where the courts have decreed the same

2. discrimination against homosexuals is currently not at a level where protected status designation is justified

just because you opened your mind so wide your brain fell out, doesn't mean insurmountable levels of discrimination are happening

we live in a very open and inclusive land of remarkable civility

we don't want cause resentment and division by enacting special protection for some groups

March 31, 2015 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cited a lot more than the gay hating restaurant owner in IN but as usual, your head is too deeply planted in the sand for inconvenient facts to register.

There are gay dads who are not even allowed to have their name on their sons' birth certificates in Texas, a gay couple in Alabama being denied the right to adopt, and five of the many cases of employment discrimination in states that have that have this religious license to discriminate law on their books.

Enjoy cherry-picking a couple of polls and ignoring the fact that RCP's 2016 Presidential Race page is solid blue. Not a single Republican comes close to Clinton in the race.

March 31, 2015 9:33 AM  
Anonymous no such deal said...

"I cited a lot more than the gay hating restaurant owner in IN but as usual, your head is too deeply planted in the sand for inconvenient facts to register."

actually, as kind as your loving comments were, I think I was writing the post when you posted the additional examples

looks like you posted to a bunch of videos, which I'm not going to watch, but if you have some text, I'd be happy to comment

again, I'm sure some people don't want to hire gays but it's not common and frequent enough to merit legislation

also, let us know if you have anyone who was discriminated against based on religious belief in those states, we weren't talking about the common human bias against otherness

"There are gay dads who are not even allowed to have their name on their sons' birth certificates in Texas,"

I doubt that but, if true, it could be remedied without overarching legislation

"a gay couple in Alabama being denied the right to adopt,"

not a bad policy

kids are better off in marriages and homes with both genders present

"and five of the many cases of employment discrimination in states that have that have this religious license to discriminate law on their books."

see above

Enjoy cherry-picking a couple of polls and ignoring the fact that RCP's 2016 Presidential Race page is solid blue. Not a single Republican comes close to Clinton in the race.

March 31, 2015 10:21 AM  
Anonymous everybody in the whole cell block said...

"Enjoy cherry-picking a couple of polls and ignoring the fact that RCP's 2016 Presidential Race page is solid blue. Not a single Republican comes close to Clinton in the race."

no way in the world that Clinton makes it to the general election

what's known so far is the tip of the iceberg

and we know she committed criminal activity

in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, she destroyed evidence under subpoena

on of Obama's last acts as President will likely be to pardon her

March 31, 2015 10:33 AM  
Anonymous warming up warning said...

OK, well

five years ago, all major Democratic politicians opposed same sex marriage

now, the common wisdom is that such an attitude is the equivalent of joining the KKK

and if you had said to the few liberal radicals who supported it something like: "if we approve gay marriage, the next thing you know bakers and photographers and banquet facilities will be forced to run gay weddings", the liberals would accuse you of being a paranoid right-winger

indeed, if you told them we'll allow gay marriages as long as those who disagree will not be forced to participate, they'd have gladly taken the deal

so, it's fair to ask a few questions about where this is all heading:

1. if a religious college has an honor code that forbids extramarital sex, will they lose accreditation if they don't amend it to include gay "marriage"?

2. if religious colleges don't have specific rules but are found to preference traditional marriage, will they lose tax-exempt status

3. will Judeo-Christian-Islamic groups that teach traditional marriage be banned from college campuses?

4. will others who support traditional marriage be banned from our society's elite institutions? (Brendan Eich, Chik-Fil-A being examples)

5. will the state recognize marriages performed by clergy that don't marry same-sex couples?

6. will churches that teach against same sex "marriage" lose tax-exempt status?

7. will parents who teach their children that homosexuality is wrong lose the right to home-school their children?

8. will private religious schools be forced to teach that homosexuality is morally neutral?




March 31, 2015 1:21 PM  
Anonymous comrade hoosier said...

the left-wing always tends to intolerance

the Mensheviks don't stand a chance against the Bolseviks

Indiana’s RFRA controversy shows the commitment of the secular left to enforce fealty within a naked public square, with tolerance no longer a virtue and the power of government used to eliminate dissent

the secular left is more eager than ever to engineer the society they seek, no matter the cost

like the Bolsheviks before them

March 31, 2015 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Pence's own words said...

Pence's 3/31/15/ press conference

"....I abhor discrimination.... I don't believe for a minute that it was the intention of the General Assembly to create a license to discriminate, or a right to deny services to gays, lesbians or anyone else in this state. And it certainly wasn't my intent," he added. "But I can appreciate that that's become the impression -- not just here in Indiana, but all across this country. And we need to confront that."

Indiana's Republican House Speaker's words:

""What we had hoped for with the bill was a message of inclusion, inclusion of all religious beliefs," Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma said Monday. "What instead has come out is a message of exclusion, and that was not the intent."

Bosma acknowledged a major concern is whether businesses will now be legally permitted to deny services to some people as a result of the law, and noted that even he was unclear about whether that was the case.

"We don’t believe that will be the effect,” he said. “We are looking at options to clarify that that's the case.""

March 31, 2015 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"five years ago, all major Democratic politicians opposed same sex marriage"

Five years ago four states plus Washington DC, all with plenty of Democratic politicians, had legalized same sex marriage.

Effective November 12, 2008, same-sex marriage became legal in Connecticut.

Effective May 17, 2004, same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts.

Effective January 2, 2010, same-sex marriage became legal in New Hampshire.

Effective September 1, 2009, same-sex marriage became legal in Vermont.

Effective March 9, 2010, same-sex marriage became legal in Washington, DC.


March 31, 2015 5:17 PM  
Anonymous why does the media lie? said...

"Bosma acknowledged a major concern is whether businesses will now be legally permitted to deny services to some people as a result of the law,"

in most of Indiana they are, Boz

a person in your position should be more informed

or maybe you're just lying to appease big money bullies

in Indiana, like every state, it is perfectly legal to discriminate unless the subject of the discrimination is part of a protected class

homosexuals have never been designated a protected class in the state of Indiana so, unless there's a local statute, gays are treated just like everyone else

it's perfectly legal to discriminate against them just as it is perfectly legal to discriminate against anyone else

it's called freedom

March 31, 2015 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Obama is a lying liar who lies said...

"Five years ago four states plus Washington DC, all with plenty of Democratic politicians, had legalized same sex marriage"

New England is fascinating

of course, at that point, no electorate had approved

Obama was against; so was Bill & Hillary, Biden, Gore, Reid, Pelosi, et al

of course, if you believe the eternally creepy David Axelrod, Obama lied about his position to get elected

who knows what he's lyin' about now

March 31, 2015 5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" “We are headed to the point where a political candidate who is perceived as anti-gay at the presidential level will never connect with people under 30 years old.”

He’s right, of course, and the numbers prove it. The problem is virtually all the GOP presidential candidates, including his own client (Marc Rubio), just put themselves on the wrong side of the issue.

As word of Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law began to spread, businesses howled and the state House speaker and Senate president pro tem promised to fix the bill. Pence backed down Tuesday and called for new legislation “that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone.”


Or "freedom" as you call it.

"...Support for same-sex marriage is now 55 percent, a doubling over 18 years. Fifty-eight percent now think gay relationships are morally acceptable, an 18-point increase from just 2001...."

When you keep your head so deeply buried in the sand, you miss the movement above ground.

March 31, 2015 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Public opinion has rendered its verdict on the morality of gay and lesbian relationships. That opinion will not be reversed. The only question is whether the Republican Party will acknowledge and adapt to this new reality.”

March 31, 2015 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Miley Cyrus for dog-catcher said...

"“We are headed to the point where a political candidate who is perceived as anti-gay at the presidential level will never connect with people under 30 years old.”"

outside of elitists at certain leftist academic institutions, I don't think most young people consider this is an important issue

they may agree in theory but it's never going to be a "connect" issue

in addition, right now gay advocates are getting away with a lot of illogic and false rhetoric

as the issue matures, this will fade

"He’s right, of course, and the numbers prove it. The problem is virtually all the GOP presidential candidates, including his own client (Marc Rubio), just put themselves on the wrong side of the issue."

nothing's changed since November when the GOP swept virtually every contested race at every level and now control the House, Senate, and the vast majority of state legislatures and governor mansions

"As word of Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law began to spread, businesses howled and the state House speaker and Senate president pro tem promised to fix the bill."

yes, businesses bullied Indiana by economic discrimination against the state and a bunch of celebrities made a bunch of ignorant statements (what's new?)

yet, I haven't read any polls or seen any uprising among voters

"Pence backed down Tuesday and called for new legislation “that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone.”"

the thing is the law may not

but that right exists

if you start a catering business, for example, no one can force you to work for them

unless they are in a protected class

in which case, they can sue

it's an infringement of freedom that society considers temporarily justified because of extraordinary hardship

Indiana hasn't ruled that gays are suffering hardships worthy of protected class status

and they aren't changing that

"Or "freedom" as you call it."

people are free to not do business with me

why shouldn't they not be free to do business with gays?

"...Support for same-sex marriage is now 55 percent, a doubling over 18 years. Fifty-eight percent now think gay relationships are morally acceptable, an 18-point increase from just 2001...."

55 percent is not exactly universal but, yes, opinion has shifted

explaining why hypocritical Dems, which would be virtually all national Democrats, now support gay marriages when they didn't not long ago

"When you keep your head so deeply buried in the sand, you miss the movement above ground."

oh, I think I keep more informed about views that differ from my own than the average TTFer

telling that you feel views that differ from a slim majority constitute some type of ignorance

I assume, then, that you read the polls before forming your convictions

no wonder you voted for Obama

you're soul-mates

“Public opinion has rendered its verdict on the morality of gay and lesbian relationships. That opinion will not be reversed."

that 55% is sealed in stone? 6% couldn't change their mind?

not necessarily

1970s pre-AIDS America had much the same opinion

and, truthfully, the numbers are so close that the margin of error could put it close to break-even

"The only question is whether the Republican Party will acknowledge and adapt to this new reality.”"

the reality is that most Americans would feel that people who object to homosexuality for religious reasons shouldn't be forced to participate in it's rituals

here's more reality: neither Tim Cook or Miley Cyrus would win any elections in America

April 01, 2015 10:46 AM  
Anonymous great lakes of fire said...

While the Whole-Earth-Catalogue Dems of Monkey County bury their head in the sand, other Dems across America realize they need to need to get more conservative if they expect to get the Senate back.

Most of the Senate battlegrounds run through the Midwest—Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio—along with New Hampshire, which carries demographic similarities with those older, whiter Great Lakes states. To defeat the vulnerable Republican incumbents, Democrats have a challenging task ahead: Making inroads with blue-collar voters, who have been stubbornly resistant to the party's agenda since Barack Obama's time as president.

April 01, 2015 11:29 AM  
Anonymous a day in the lie said...

Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden, Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold

what do they all have in common?

they voted for the national RFRA like the state one Indiana just passed

then, Bill Clinton signed it

Jesse Helms, Robert Byrd

you guessed it

they voted against it

indeed, prior to the law's enactment, everyone considered it's provisions to be mandated by the Constitution

until, Antonin Scalia wrote a majority opinion that they weren't

prompting the Dems to make the law

a couple years later, Illinois passed their own version

guess who voted for it?

an incompetent state legislator named Barack Obama

"You’ve probably heard by now about Indiana’s horrible new anti-gay law.

That would be the one allowing religious people to exempt themselves from any generally applicable law they feel like and permitting businesses to discriminate against gays.

No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service.

Celebrities and all right-thinking people are boycotting the new “hate state” over its discriminatory return to the dark ages. There’s just one problem: the law doesn’t say any of these things.

Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn’t give blanket permission to businesses to deny service to gays or anyone else. (If a business truly wants to avoid serving sinners, it will have zero customers.) It doesn’t mention sexual orientation at all.

What it does say is that government entities in the state “may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” only “in the furtherance of a compelling government interest” and using “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”

Frankly, that should be the requirement for all government action, even when religion isn’t involved.

If a person feels their free exercise rights have been or are likely to be substantially burdened, they can make a legal claim or assert this as a legal defense.

Whether that person’s legal argument would prevail or not is ultimately up to a judge.

That’s it.

With 40 percent of the country living under state-level RFRAs and the federal version being in effect for 22 years, we have not seen a huge surge in courts ruling in favor of discrimination against gays.

Indiana doesn’t ban private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the first place, so businesses inclined to discriminate don’t necessarily need to sue under a religious freedom law. It doesn’t appear that many are so inclined.

In fact, large corporations are protesting the new Indiana law — just as hundreds of them have also asked the Supreme Court to declare a constitutional right to gay marriage"

April 01, 2015 11:47 AM  
Anonymous are hypocrites hypsters? said...

To recap: Tim Cook and the left are happy to do business in countries that stone to death or otherwise jail gay people, but will not do business with Indiana, which merely passed a law insisting that the “free exercise” clause of the first amendment be on the same legal footing in courts as the “free speech” clause of the first amendment.

The Supreme Court, in Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), ruled that for a state to restrict content based speech, it must have a compelling governmental interest. But the Court subsequently ruled that the free exercise clause, also in the First Amendment, need not fall under the compelling governmental interest” standard. President Bill Clinton and a near unanimous Congress disagreed and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

31 states similarly moved to protect religious practice and 20 have explicit copies of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Indiana is the latest. Georgia’s Governor, Nathan Deal, just tucked tail and ran from putting religious expression on the same legal footing as speech. The cowards of the Georgia Republican Party decided they would rather serve Mamon and have the checks to prove it.

What we are learning in the controversy, though, is simple: you will be made to care. There will be no middle ground. Many people would like to find middle ground. Many churches would like to find middle ground. But there will be none because homosexuals and their culture war warriors on the left are unwilling to have a middle ground.

April 01, 2015 12:04 PM  
Anonymous are hypocrites hypsters? said...

The gay rights movement has decided their rights are equivalent to the Civil Rights movement and, through their interpretation of the Civl Rights movement, there can be no accommodation with the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment. The “free exercise” clause is not limited to worship. It is “free exercise of religion.” It applies, or should, to the business owner who views his job as missional. It applies, or it should, to the religious school whose faculty honor the tenets of its faith. But the left, in recent years, has taken to calling it a “right to worship” instead of a “right to religion.”

The gay rights movement cannot abide a middle ground and a free exercise of religion for a simple reason — homosexuality is not normal in nature, in historic relationships, or in the sacred texts of almost all religions. The gay rights movement must therefore censor and subjugate dissent. Any who point out the lack of historic or religious acceptance or the lack of its ready existence in nature or, for that matter, the lack of scientific evidence showing homosexuality is a birth trait as opposed to a choice or external factors, must be shut up.

Homosexuals and the gay rights movement crave not tolerance, but the veneer of normalcy. To tolerate them means to allow them to be. But that also equates to heterosexuals being in a better position — one that decides who to tolerate. They have moved to demanding “equality” for now.

You can generally look at a woman or a person of a different race and tell immediately that the person is a woman or of a different race or ethnicity. One does not need a rainbow sticker on the back of their car to let people know they’re black. Or Asian. Or a Woman. The struggle for equality and civil rights between genders and races is inherently and objectively different from the gay rights movement. It is also why the gay rights movement is so invested in arguing that gender, though not sexuality, is a choice.

April 01, 2015 12:05 PM  
Anonymous are hyopocrites hypsters? said...

The gay agenda depends on equating the various struggles. Through mythology [insert your favorite historic person and he'll probably be declared gay], pseudoscience [you're born gay, but you pick your gender], and organized harassment of critics, the gay rights movement silences dissent to establish legitimacy in their quest for normalcy. The Stonewall riots are their Selma. Pay no attention to the lack of dogs in the street, poll taxes at the voting booth, and “heterosexual only” water fountains.

In Macon, Georgia, a Catholic School was okay with a gay band teacher until he wanted to get married. The Catholic Church views marriage as a church sacrament. The school dismisses teachers who get divorced for violating the sacrament and dismissed the gay band teacher for marrying in violation of the sacrament. The Obama Administration has decided the Catholic Church cannot set the standards of conduct for its faculty.

Around the country, gay rights activists have attacked Christians for daring to put their faith ahead of the wants and desires of homosexual marriage advocates. The Christians must be silenced and punished. Their faith cannot be respected. Legislation designed to allow diversity of religion and the free exercise thereof must be stopped and must be decried as discrimination.

The move to put “free exercise” on the same footing with “free speech” must be opposed because most major faiths recognize homosexuality as outside normal behavior. The logical outcome of this will eventually be to reduce free speech. People and faiths are going to have to be shut up for homosexuals to have the veneer of normalcy.

April 01, 2015 12:07 PM  
Anonymous are hypocrites hypsters? said...

But it won’t stop there. Over time, the gay rights movement will move to pushing churches to marry gays because normally people get married in churches. Over time, it will move to push religious schools to abandon standards on sexuality. Over time, it will mean religious institutions lose their tax exempt status. Over time, it will require Bible believing churches be labeled hate groups and orthodox Christianity be forced to the sidelines. Over time, it will mean that the state must intervene and protect children from parents who want to raise them as orthodox Bible believing Christians.

Essentially, replacing the prohibition on religious tests clause of the Constitution will become an enforcement of a secularism clause. People of faith need not apply for jobs, political appointments, or elected office. People of faith will be the new bigots because their God said “go and sin no more” and dared list homosexuality as one of those sins.

Ultimately, over time, two thousand years of Christianity will be forced to be treated as the deviant lifestyle. You will be forced to pick a side. If you remain true to your God, you will be outside the bounds of acceptable conduct. You will be made to care.

If you pick the wrong side, you will be punished. Gay rights activists cannot show you tolerance and cannot treat you equally, because that means you and your faith that suggests homosexuality is a sin would be allowed to remain in the public square. And in the quest for the veneer for normalcy, that cannot stand.

For any who suggest this is hyperbole, a college is having its accreditation threatened because of its religious views on sex and a seventy year old is losing her home and business because she did not want to provide flowers to existing, regular customers for a gay wedding.

The good news, however, is this — Christianity is growing worldwide, even in places like China and Saudi Arabia. People of faith continue to have more kids and, in fact, can actually naturally procreate. The gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction. And the religion that withstood Nero and even now withstands ISIS can withstand a bunch of angry people in comfortable shoes who need stickers on their cars to tell us who they are.


The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming.

Psalm 37:12-1

April 01, 2015 12:08 PM  
Anonymous stop in the name of sense said...

bears repeating:

"The gay rights movement cannot abide a middle ground and a free exercise of religion for a simple reason — homosexuality is not normal in nature, in historic relationships, or in the sacred texts of almost all religions. The gay rights movement must therefore censor and subjugate dissent. Any who point out the lack of historic or religious acceptance or the lack of its ready existence in nature or, for that matter, the lack of scientific evidence showing homosexuality is a birth trait as opposed to a choice or external factors, must be shut up.

Homosexuals and the gay rights movement crave not tolerance, but the veneer of normalcy. To tolerate them means to allow them to be. But that also equates to heterosexuals being in a better position."

if you think there's not a backlash coming, you're insane

the gay movement should have accepted tolerance and moved on

what's going on now, can't end well

April 01, 2015 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8 comments of H8.

What a fool.



April 01, 2015 1:59 PM  
Anonymous astronomically economic said...

not one word of H8

the writer above nailed when he said gays can't accept mere tolerance because they know the truth is that they are not normal so they must militantly suppress thought and speech so that readily apparent idea is hidden

if I go in to a baker and ask him to bake a cake for some cause he disagrees with, he is free to decline

but gays think a baker should be forced by the government to bake a cake for them

why? they know no one considers their behavior normal

two dangerous fallacies being pushed by the gay agenda:

1. to disagree with a lifestyle is hatred

2. not supporting special protections for certain behavior is an act of violence


April 01, 2015 2:50 PM  
Anonymous anti-zero sum said...

it's one of those elections coming up where winning a party's nomination is tantamount to winning the election

assuming Hillary hasn't been indicted, she'll be the loser

so Republican will essentially choose the next Prez

today's poll:

Walker 20, Bush 17, Cruz 16

America can't lose

it's win-win-win

April 01, 2015 3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"“We are headed to the point where a political candidate who is perceived as anti-gay at the presidential level will never connect with people under 30 years old.”"

That comment you quoted was made by GOP pollster Whit Ayres.

I am well aware of the trending in acceptance of marriage equality, which you seem to imagine is within the margin of error and might just change all of a sudden. It's not and it won't. Tim Cook and Miley Cyrus have nothing to do with it.

"the national RFRA like the state one Indiana just passed"

You are misinformed. I suggest you read up on what those differences are.

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

Excerpt: "There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993....

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches.....Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

...The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”


"No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service."

"No shoes, no shirt" signs are proudly posted all over the place, so tell us Anon, why are homophobes like you afraid of stating outright who you will and will not serve?

April 01, 2015 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"“We are headed to the point where a political candidate who is perceived as anti-gay at the presidential level will never connect with people under 30 years old.”"

That comment you quoted was made by GOP pollster Whit Ayres.

I am well aware of the trending in acceptance of marriage equality, which you seem to imagine is within the margin of error and might just change all of a sudden. It's not and it won't. Tim Cook and Miley Cyrus have nothing to do with it.

"the national RFRA like the state one Indiana just passed"

You are misinformed. I suggest you read up on what those differences are. Here's a good place to start:

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

Excerpt: "There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993....

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches.....Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

...The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”


"No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service."

"No shoes, no shirt" signs are proudly posted all over the place, so tell us Anon, why are homophobes like you so afraid of stating outright who you will and will not serve?

April 01, 2015 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"“We are headed to the point where a political candidate who is perceived as anti-gay at the presidential level will never connect with people under 30 years old.”"

That comment you quoted was made by GOP pollster Whit Ayres.

I am well aware of the trending in acceptance of marriage equality, which you seem to imagine is within the margin of error and might just change all of a sudden. It's not and it won't. Tim Cook and Miley Cyrus have nothing to do with it.

"the national RFRA like the state one Indiana just passed"

You are misinformed. I suggest you read up on what those differences are. Here's a good place to start:

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

Excerpt: "There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993....

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches.....Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

...The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”


"No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service."

"No shoes, no shirt" signs are proudly posted all over the place, so tell us Anon, why are homophobes like you so afraid of stating outright who you will and will not serve?

April 01, 2015 3:49 PM  
Anonymous teaching facts.... said...

“We are headed to the point where a political candidate who is perceived as anti-gay at the presidential level will never connect with people under 30 years old.”

That comment you quoted was made by GOP pollster Whit Ayres.

I am well aware of the trending in acceptance of marriage equality, which you seem to imagine is within the margin of error and might just change all of a sudden. It's not and it won't. Tim Cook and Miley Cyrus have nothing to do with it.

"the national RFRA like the state one Indiana just passed"

You are misinformed. There are two very important difference between the federal RFRA and the one enacted in Indiana. I suggest you read up on what those differences are. Here's a good place to start:

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

Excerpt: "There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993....

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches.....Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

...The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”


"No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service."

"No shoes, no shirt" signs are proudly posted all over the place, so tell us Anon, why are homophobes like you so afraid of stating outright who you will and will not serve?

April 01, 2015 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“We are headed to the point where a political candidate who is perceived as anti-gay at the presidential level will never connect with people under 30 years old.”

That comment you quoted was made by GOP pollster Whit Ayres.

I am well aware of the trending in acceptance of marriage equality, which you seem to imagine is within the margin of error and might just change all of a sudden. It's not and it won't. Tim Cook and Miley Cyrus have nothing to do with it.

"the national RFRA like the state one Indiana just passed"

You are misinformed. There are two very important difference between the federal RFRA and the one enacted in Indiana. I suggest you read up on what those differences are. Here's a good place to start:

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

Excerpt: "There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993....

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches.....Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

...The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”


"No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service."

"No shoes, no shirt" signs are proudly posted all over the place, so tell us Anon, why are homophobes like you so afraid of stating outright who you will and will not serve?

April 01, 2015 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Another one sees the light said...

Arkansas Governor Says He Won't Sign 'Religious Freedom' Bill Until Changes Are Made

"WASHINGTON -- Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) said on Wednesday he would not yet sign a controversial religious freedom act into law, requesting that the state legislature make changes to the bill in the wake of criticism that the legislation could be used to facilitate discrimination against LGBT citizens and other groups.

Hutchinson said at a press conference that he was seeking changes to make Arkansas' legislation mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1993. Hutchinson previously had promised to sign the legislation. The surprising announcement came a day after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) was forced to defend a similar law in his state. After facing a national firestorm, Pence called on Tuesday for new legislation that would clarify that his law does not grant businesses the right to deny services to anyone.

The Arkansas RFRA that passed through the legislature yesterday has broad language that is not contained in the federal RFRA. The Arkansas legislation currently extends the definition of "person" to include corporations, granting for-profit businesses a right to religious exercise. The legislation also allows any "person" to cite religion rights as a defense or claim in a private lawsuit.

Proponents of these laws contend that RFRAs are nothing new, arguing that the state has a compelling interest to prevent discrimination. However, the Indiana law and Arkansas legislation include new language that appears designed to respond to a 2013 lawsuit in New Mexico, where the state's Supreme Court ruled that a photographer who refused to serve a same-sex couple violated an anti-discrimination law. The court explicitly noted that New Mexico's RFRA did not protect businesses from lawsuits by private parties. (Federal circuit courts have recently been split on the matter.)

The climate in which these RFRAs are passed is also very different than it was a decade ago. Because same-sex marriage is increasingly legal, civil rights advocates contend these laws will be used to override local non-discrimination laws that protect people on the basis of sexual orientation.

On Tuesday, Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, said, "We would like to see both Indiana and Arkansas adopt language clarifying that the state RFRA cannot be used to undermine federal, state or local non-discrimination laws."

Arkansas lawmakers floated this idea during a committee hearing earlier this week, but the bill's author, state Rep. Bob Ballinger (R), said it would be too confusing to attempt to define what constitutes discrimination. The bill ultimately ended up including a legislative finding that it is a "compelling governmental interest to comply with federal civil rights laws.” But this language is not meaningful, advocates say, in part because federal civil rights laws have no explicit protections for LGBT people.

It is still unclear what kind of legislative fix Pence will approve for his law, or under what conditions Hutchinson will sign the Arkansas legislation. The Arkansas governor said on Wednesday that even his own son had signed a petition asking him to veto the bill.

"There's a generational difference of opinion on these issues," Hutchinson said.

April 01, 2015 4:33 PM  
Anonymous i can see clearly now said...

"That comment you quoted was made by GOP pollster Whit Ayres"

so what?

I was simply pasting a post from some TTFer so it would be clear what I was commenting on

I don't care where they got it

"I am well aware of the trending in acceptance of marriage equality, which you seem to imagine is within the margin of error and might just change all of a sudden"

I didn't imagine anything. I stated a couple of facts.

1. it's not overwhelming
2. it could change

"It's not and it won't"

so, you the one imagining

you seem to imagine you can tell the future, or read minds

"You are misinformed. There are two very important difference between the federal RFRA and the one enacted in Indiana. I suggest you read up on what those differences are."

I've read it. It's not significant. If you'll think of some real-life scenarios, you'll see that.

""No shoes, no shirt" signs are proudly posted all over the place, so tell us Anon, why are homophobes like you so afraid of stating outright who you will and will not serve?"

actually, I'm not a homophobe

I don't think business owners should have to decide beforehand who they will or will not serve

they are well within their rights to make the decision on a momentary whim

they may just have a gut reaction that they don't like someone and don't want anything to do with them

you seem to be afraid that will always be the case if the customer's gay

btw, no government requires "no-shirt, no-shoes" signs

business owners do it for their convenience

why do gays want to give business to people who don't support gay marriage?

it's either because they're afraid no one supports gay marriage

or it's a political tactic to attack their opponents, by having the government force their opponents to serve them

I use to think gays just wanted to tolerance and I thought the whole thing was kind of a laugh

but it's starting to become clear how evil and dangerous the gay agenda is

April 01, 2015 4:55 PM  
Anonymous The trend revealed said...

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) pulled back his support for a "religious freedom" bill Wednesday, citing the controversy and division it has created not only within his state, but also within his own family.

"The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions," Hutchison said in a press conference Wednesday morning. "It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue."

"My son Seth signed the petition asking me, Dad, the governor, to veto this bill," he added. "And he gave me permission to make that reference, and it shows that families -- and there's a generational difference of opinion on these issues."

Seth Hutchinson is a labor organizer with the Texas State Employees Union, and he signed a MoveOn petition on March 29. He was not immediately available for comment.

April 01, 2015 5:02 PM  
Anonymous bumming around said...

"Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) pulled back his support for a "religious freedom" bill Wednesday, citing the controversy and division it has created not only within his state, but also within his own family."

oh look, another politician allowed himself to be bullied by big business

""The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions," Hutchison said in a press conference Wednesday morning."

actually, no

there is absolutely no conflict between tolerating deviant sexual practices and practicing one's religious

the current problem is that the deviants want to force religious believers to participate in their practices

there are few religious believers who would refuse to sell a gay guy a rose just because he's gay

and if the gays were part of a protected class in that locality, a court would probably side with the gays under the new Indiana law

but if he asks the religious florist to decorate a hall to celebrate a gay wedding, they might refuse and, if they did, under Indiana's law, the court would probably side with the florist

"It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue."

it's not exactly Vietnam

""My son Seth signed the petition asking me, Dad, the governor, to veto this bill," he added. "And he gave me permission to make that reference, and it shows that families -- and there's a generational difference of opinion on these issues."

Seth Hutchinson is a labor organizer with the Texas State Employees Union, and he signed a MoveOn petition on March 29. He was not immediately available for comment."

fascinating

how about if his low-account bum son wants free kegs for all citizens in Arkansas?

April 01, 2015 8:53 PM  
Anonymous facing down the mob said...

On Tuesday, the owners of an Indiana pizza parlor made a terrible mistake. The O’Connor family, which runs Memories Pizza in the small town of Walkerton, told a local ABC affiliate that while they would “never deny” service to a gay couple or a customers of another religion, “they just don’t agree with gay marriages” and would not provide pizzas for a gay wedding if asked.

If you’ve been following the wild-eyed, hair-on-fire debate over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act—a law widely labeled as “anti-gay” and berated as “bigotry” by celebrities ranging from Apple CEO Tim Cook to pop star Miley Cyrus—you won’t be surprised by what happened next.

Within minutes, an Internet mob descended upon Memories Pizza. Twitter users, including an Indiana high school golf coach, threatened to burn the place down. Others hijacked the restaurant’s Yelp page with gay porn and personal threats, including the following gem: “Oh yeah, I’m going to kill your Jesus. Try and stop me.” (News flash: Somebody already tried that once.) As radio host Dana Loesch reported, the O’Connors also received death threats—so many, in fact, that they’re considering closing their restaurant.

Charming, is it not? Welcome to “tolerance” in 2015. The Great Hoosier Gay Pizza Conflagration, sadly, is only the latest bout of hysteria surrounding a rather anodyne law. Earlier, in a Washington Post op-ed, Apple’s Cook had labeled the RFRA “dangerous,” calling for a boycott of Indiana—perhaps forgetting, in his fervor, that he gladly does business in violently anti-gay Saudi Arabia. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, not to be outdone, banned “non-essential” state travel to the benighted midwestern state. (Nothing says freedom like panicked bans and closed borders!) Meanwhile, writing for Time magazine, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar called Indiana’s RFRA “an American version of Sharia law” that would make “a single religion’s teachings ... the law of the land.”

If you know anything about RFRA laws, this is patently absurd. Nineteen other states have RFRAs; the federal government adopted one in 1993. Several prominent proponents of gay rights and gay marriage have defended Indiana’s proposed law,explaining that it simply allows religious minorities a day in court if they feel their conscience or First Amendment freedoms have been violated.

These facts don’t matter, of course. It has become increasingly clear that the Indiana blow-up has nothing to do with the details of any law. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar may not realize it, but he pretty much wrote the “Stairway to Heaven” of opinion columns: The true message is there, but only if you read it backwards. The New Sharia isn’t coming from powerful and intolerant Christians. It’s coming from the activist left, closely allied with big business and government. It’s a coalition that, increasingly, will not tolerate dissent of any kind.

Conservative Christians, it appears, can’t just live and let live when it comes to gay marriage. They have to actively support and participate in it, lest the “You Must Approve” coalition swoop in and try to ruin their business, their reputation, and their life. This is sad. It is strange. It certainly reflects a stunning insecurity. It’s also happening across the country: For refusing to participate in same-sex weddings, an Oregon bakery was shuttered, a Washington florist may lose her business, and photography studios, wedding venues and t-shirt shops have been targeted with closure, fines, and crippling legal bills.

April 02, 2015 8:06 AM  
Anonymous facing down the mob said...

You might think religious objections to gay marriage are silly or outdated. You might even think that people who decline to serve gay weddings are misguided jerks. That’s your right; it’s a free country, at least for now. Personally, I think most religious objections to gay marriage are understandable and reasonable, not “bigoted.” On the same token, if any of my gay friends want me to bake a cake for their wedding, I’ll bake the best darn wedding cake this side of Gene Hackman. (Actually, that’s a lie. I would probably do what I usually do in social occasions that require the bringing of food, which would be to buy something at a fancy store and pretend that I made it myself.)

But then again, I value freedom and diversity. The New Sharia does not. In fact, many Americans seem to have lost a basic understanding of how freedom works. Remember high school civics class, where Lesson One is that your First Amendment rights don’t really exist unless they are also applied to people whose ideas you might find wrong, even abhorrent? Something tells me they don’t teach that anymore. To be fair, maybe they don’t have time, given their full slate of privilege detector tests, trigger warnings, and general Airings of Grievances.

It’s sad to see people make monsters out of their neighbors. Watching the Internet mobs descend upon Memories Pizza—as well as the media and business mobs that descended upon Indiana in general—made me wonder if any of these enraged, fire-breathing laptop warriors ever step out of the house and look around. All across America, in grocery stores, coffee shops, schools, and parks, gay and straight people not only coexist, they get along. They are friends. Face to face, for the most part, they have goodwill and a sense of community—or, at the very least, a sense of polite respect.

We have, for now, a functioning civil society. But with the rise of the “You Must Approve” mob and its powerful partners, cracks are beginning to show. Ironically, the freedoms that the mob seeks to destroy—the freedoms of religion, speech, and association—are the very same freedoms that separate us from places like Saudi Arabia. If certain groups get their way, they might not be around for long

April 02, 2015 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Ooooo scary unruly mob comments said...

I had the single most horrific experience of my life!
I wanted some pizza after my klan rally so of course it was memories pizza. I know we are supposed to be anonymous and all that but whatever!
I ordered a nice hot and steamy not gay and extra mozzarella cause I only consume white cheese because it is the superior cheese. And resting on top of my pepperoni was a tooth! I was shocked, but relieved it was a white tooth. Apparently it belonged to the girl behind the counter.
I went to return it to her and she was making out with this woman and screaming it was a choice!
It seems to me this restaurant has gone downhill.
I plan to tell my klan friends about this and we will be eating our white cheese elsewhere! – Rachel F.


I realize everyone wants to vent their disgust at the anti-gay bigotry expressed by the owners, but let’s remember two things:

1. No self-respecting Gay couple is going to serve pizza at their wedding, ever.

2. Only two customers have reviewed this place in the supposedly nine years since it opened. What is the point of announcing your plans to discriminate against Gay customers when you have NO customers, Gay or Straight, to speak of?

This is a transparent attempt to fly the Christian martyr “mean Gays are calling us bigots” flag in the hopes that other mouth-breathers in the area will rally to them and their crappy pizza the way Southerners rallied to Chick Fil-A. Deny them the oxygen of your outrage, and their uninspired fare will put them out of business in due course. – Michael N.

They have a great pizza. It’s the intolerance special with toppings of hate, bigotry, stupidity, and old fashioned beliefs. – Jarrett J.

I came in with my boyfriend a few weeks ago for a couple of slices. They told of us the good word of Jesus’s love. Which was all great until we told them we were engaged to be married, at which point they spit on us and bashed us upon the head and torso with pizza pans. They said it was all in the name of Jesus so I guess it’s not all bad. I choose never to give them my business anymore, because..ya know…that’s my choice. – T W.

You can’t even get kale on a pizza here. Looks like I’ll have to find someone else to cater my wedding. – Barrett L.

April 02, 2015 8:33 AM  
Anonymous there's no easy way to be free said...

Within minutes, an Internet mob descended upon Memories Pizza. Twitter users, including an Indiana high school golf coach, threatened to burn the place down. Others hijacked the restaurant’s Yelp page with gay porn and personal threats, including the following gem: “Oh yeah, I’m going to kill your Jesus. Try and stop me.” (News flash: Somebody already tried that once.) As radio host Dana Loesch reported, the O’Connors also received death threats—so many, in fact, that they’re considering closing their restaurant.

TTF response:

"Ooooo scary unruly mob"

interesting response from a group that thinks a refusal to make a pizza is an act of violence

the true colors of gay advocates are coming out

I've always thought this movement tends to totalitarianism and this current situation proves it

thought and speech must be repressed, by any means necessary

those who disagree with same gender "marriage" must not only tolerate it, they must be forced to participate if called on

any thinking person who is not concerned is not thinking

April 02, 2015 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Some GOPers want to "require every American to attend a church" and to vote on a resolution stating "the Christian God is the ultimate authority in all things" said...

“Church attendance should be mandatory, so let’s write a law about that!” Arizona state Senator Sylvia Allen was supposed to be debating a gun bill, but instead took a side-route into the moral decay of our country, and what could be done to turn that around. “And how we get back to a moral rebirth in this country, I don’t know since we are slowly eroding religion at every opportunity that we have,” Allen said, via Talking Points Memo. “Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth.”

Weekly mandatory church attendance wouldn’t get us back to those mythic Eisenhower years that Republicans like Allen seem to miss so much, but it would be a pretty fantastic violation of the Establishment Clause.

===============

“God is the authority. Legislate it, please.” Tennessee state Rep. Micah Van Huss is religious, and as such he knows that the Christian God is the ultimate authority in all things. And he’s so convinced it’s true, he thinks the state should pass a resolution to declare it so.

“The joint resolution would acknowledge a higher power giving rights and laws, rather than democratically elected officials,” reports the Johnson City Press. “’We recognize that our liberties do not come from governments, but from Almighty God, our Creator and Savior,’ is the passage Van Huss has proposed be added to Article I in House Joint Resolution 71.”

According to Van Hus, this is pressing business because, “As a nation, we are drifting from the morals of our founding, and I think it’s important to reaffirm that our liberties do not come from the King of England. They do not come from Barack Obama. They come from God.”

April 02, 2015 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who's freaking out about internet trolls saying stupid things about people holding views they disagree with -- TTF's very own LGBTIQ-obsessed troll!

April 02, 2015 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LGBT Protections Included In Fix For Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law

April 02, 2015 10:51 AM  
Anonymous facing down the mob said...

"Some GOPers want to "require every American to attend a church" and to vote on a resolution stating "the Christian God is the ultimate authority in all things" said...
“Church attendance should be mandatory, so let’s write a law about that!” Arizona state Senator Sylvia Allen was supposed to be debating a gun bill, but instead took a side-route into the moral decay of our country, and what could be done to turn that around."

hadn't heard of that

it's not part of any official GOP platform

if you tried hard enough, though, you could probably find a Democrat who said the same

rest assured, this isn't supported by the teaching of Jesus

and there are no national Republicans saying this

nor is anything any church desires

I don't think any society, even those with state religions, has had this type of law

nice way to divert attention from the oppressive, bullying behavior of gay advocates in Indiana

"“God is the authority. Legislate it, please.” Tennessee state Rep. Micah Van Huss"

no need, Micah

our nation's laws were founded by this principle

does this sound familiar?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

"“The joint resolution would acknowledge a higher power giving rights and laws, rather than democratically elected officials,” reports the Johnson City Press. “’We recognize that our liberties do not come from governments, but from Almighty God, our Creator and Savior,’ is the passage Van Huss has proposed be added to Article I in House Joint Resolution 71.”

According to Van Hus, this is pressing business because, “As a nation, we are drifting from the morals of our founding, and I think it’s important to reaffirm that our liberties do not come from the King of England. They do not come from Barack Obama. They come from God.”"

no need for new laws, Micah

just endorse the Declaration of Independence

"Look who's freaking out about internet trolls saying stupid things about people holding views they disagree with -- TTF's very own LGBTIQ-obsessed troll!"

if you're talking about me, I'm not "freaking out" about "people holding views I disagree with"

people disagree with me here all the time

one of you guys even once said you wanted to kill me

in Indiana, gay advocates are threatening actual violence, not merely disagreeing

additionally, they seek to force people, by governmental force, to participate in acts they morally disagree with, namely homosexual "marriages"

if they'd like to go back to just "holding views I disagree with", that would be an advance for our prospects as a civilized society

April 02, 2015 10:57 AM  
Anonymous a dozen legit contenders said...

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina defends Indiana's "religious freedom" law, but she acknowledges the right of same-sex couples to demand equality in the "benefits" government bestows with marriage.

Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who plans to launch a presidential bid by early next month, didn't explicitly endorse same-sex marriage.

She blasted business leaders in Silicon Valley and elsewhere who have criticized the Indiana law as discriminatory, questioning why there isn't similar outrage "about the subjugation of the rights of women and gays in many countries in which these companies do business."

"We are having now a clarifying debate about what is really at stake here for gay couples," she said. "What's really at stake here for gay couples is how government bestows benefits. What's really at stake here for people of religious conviction is their conviction that marriage is a religious institution because only a man and a woman can create life, which is a gift that comes from God.

"And I think both of those points of view are valid, and I really hope that we come to a place in this country where we are prepared to have respectful differences and tolerate those two views."

Fiorina said it was "shameful" how liberals have fanned the furor over the Indiana law. "I honestly believe this is a set of liberal political activists who practice a game of identity politics and divisive politics to whip people into a frenzy, and I it's very destructive to the fabric of this country," she said.







USA TODAY

Deal on Ind. 'religious freedom' law could come Thursday








USA TODAY

Ark. governor won't sign 'religious freedom' bill as is


Still, some of the most effective opposition came from business and corporate leaders in Indiana, Silicon Valley and elsewhere, who spoke out against the law.

"Well, frankly, I think they were responding to pressure, and I think it's too bad," she said. "It's interesting to me that there isn't the same outrage in the Twitterverse about the subjugation of the rights of women and gays in many countries in which these companies do business. Where is the outrage about that? Where is the outrage about how gays are treated in Iran, for example? Where is the outrage about how women are treated in Algeria?"

The walls in Fiorina's austere new offices in suburban Virginia are decorated with posters showing covers of Votes for Women, a suffragette magazine published early in the 20th century, and the cover of another women's magazine, Leslie's, from 1920, celebrating women's right to vote.

Fiorina, 60, who unsuccessfully challenged Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer in California's Senate race in 2010, acknowledged she would need to "exceed expectations" in the presidential race. She has never held elective office, and she apparently will be the only woman in a large GOP field.

"The debates are very important," she said. "The debates are important for everyone, but I think they're certainly important for me because it's a time when Republican primary voters focus their attention on the issues and on the field, and I think it's fair to say I'll stand out. I have a different experience, a different perspective, a different voice — and I look different, besides."

April 02, 2015 11:46 AM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"not one word of H8"

You’re right about that, there was way more than one.

These pro-discrimination laws currently being passed were designed to punish gays for having their marriages legally recognized. The message you send is clear; If the government is going to protect you equally under the law, then we demand the right to make you jobless and homeless or whatever it takes to make your lives as miserable as we possibly can, at least until we can overturn Lawrence v Texas and imprison you. Hopefully by then we will have turned the U.S. into a theocracy and we can criminalize the expression of ALL things gay under penalty of death - as per the Bible.
--
Troll: "it could change" [opinions changing in favor of LGBT equality]

Truth: "It's not and it won't"

Troll: "so, you the one imagining … you seem to imagine you can tell the future, or read minds"

No, you’re the one imagining, still. It doesn’t take a psychic to figure out why opinions will continue to change in favor of LGBT equality, it’s elementary.

Propped up by lies, your "religious freedom to hate" agenda is based on the conviction that you are superior to anyone who doesn’t shut up and bow to your "oh so holy" demands, no matter how unreasonable.

The more acceptance for LGBT Americans, the more LGBT Americans come out, and round and round it grows. And the more people get to know us, or realize they’ve known us, the more they realize you’ve been feeding them lies all these years, and for what? It certainly has nothing to do with religion because it has nothing to do with the Bible. First and foremost you use it to bash gays. You despise the poor, worship obscene wealth, lust for war, support voter suppression, thus despising democracy, deny funding for any child outside the womb whenever and wherever possible. The conclusion is unavoidable, it really is and has been about hate. You’ve made your bed - in front of everyone and sealed your fate in doing so.

We’re fighting for the right to be treated equitably, you’re fighting for the right to treat us like criminals. If the roles were reversed your claims of persecution would have merit.

"actually, I'm not a homophobe"

But our equality terrifies you, thus the need for "freedom to hate" laws.

"but it's starting to become clear how evil and dangerous the gay agenda is"

Projection.

"…threatened to burn the place down. Others hijacked the restaurant’s Yelp page with gay porn and personal threats … the O’Connors also received death threats—so many, in fact, that they’re considering closing their restaurant."

That kind of behavior, true or not, is to be condemned and I DO condemn it. Pro-LGBT or not, anyone taking part in tactics like that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is absolutely no excuse for that.

"the true colors of gay advocates are coming out"

For every time you’ve called TTFrs "the lunatic fringe," has anybody here ever threatened to burn down your house? And how many death threats against you have been made?

Yet it seems to be just fine with you when anti-gay advocates express the desire to have us put to death -- as per the Bible.

When your morality is immoral, anything less than full condemnation would be sinful.

April 02, 2015 1:35 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"one of you guys even once said you wanted to kill me"

Wrong, bad and evil!

April 02, 2015 1:44 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, if someone on this site has threatened you, please point me to the incident.

JimK

April 02, 2015 3:56 PM  
Anonymous eater of black jelly beans said...

Jim, they said they wanted to kill me, they didn't actually threaten to go through with it

it was back in the early days of the blog

I didn't believe it, I think it was just rhetoric

it was Robert R and having read his comments over time, I think he's probably as meek and mild-mannered as Clark Kent

so, I'm not concerned

I'd find it for you but I can't figure out how to use your search engine

maybe you can

to paraphrase he said something like: "when I hear the things you say, I just want to kill you"

like I said, Robert doesn't worry me

he just tends to say what he thinks and that's not necessarily a bad thing

there were, though, some creepier anonymous people on your blog in the earlier days

they used to paste little hints to let me know they're watching my house

in one instance, I'd come home in the middle of the day and mistakenly forgot to close the front door and they posted it on here

but, whatever, the past is over

April 02, 2015 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what the heck?

I just wrote a long response to Patrick and it disappeared

maybe tomorrow

April 02, 2015 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blogger was acting strangely yesterday. I had to post a comment multiple times before it finally posted for more than a few seconds.

I literally saw my comment post and then it disappeared, and that happened several times. Fortunately, I had created my comment in Text Edit so my work wasn't lost and I didn't have to start over.

I suggest you draft your comments in another application and then copy and paste them to blogger so at least if it doesn't post, you haven't lost all your work.

April 03, 2015 8:40 AM  
Anonymous i'm not a robot said...

thanks

it was longer than usual and I was too tired to start over

maybe later today

April 03, 2015 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick is absolutely right.

WaPo:

"Amid the backlash over the controversial religious-liberties law in Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence and other state officials insisted the measure was never intended to permit business owners to deny service to gays and lesbians.

But that is not entirely true.

For the socially conservative organizations that proposed the measure, protecting the right of Christians to opt out of any involvement in gay marriage ceremonies was a primary goal. And they underscored that fact two weeks ago, immediately after Pence (R) signed the measure into law."


NY Times:

"Religious conservatives and some Republican political operatives now describe what occurred here as a major setback. For years now, they have been using “religious freedom” as a slogan and the legal answer to the growing gay rights movement. With same-sex marriage racking up one win after another in the courts and in public opinion, the conservatives say they believed their strategy of passing religious rights laws seemed like a consensus solution as American as Abe Lincoln.

But now, many Christian conservatives say that what happened over the last week in Indiana — and in Arkansas, where lawmakers backed away from a similar law — has been a terrible blow to their movement. They are left with a law at war with itself, with language that seems to cancel out what it had been designed to accomplish."

April 04, 2015 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Schwarzenegger speaks to "Republicans Who Choose The Politics Of Division over policies that improve the lives of all of us" said...

Now I’d like to speak to some of my fellow Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans who are sensible and driven to solve problems for America. They believe in Reagan’s vision of a big tent where everyone is welcome. This message isn’t for them.

It is for Republicans Who Choose The Politics Of Division over policies that improve the lives of all of us. It is for Republicans who have decided to neglect the next generation of voters. It is for Republicans who are fighting for laws that fly in the face of equality and freedom.

If we want our party to grow and last, we must be focused on real solutions to problems Americans are facing.

We could start with infrastructure. Traffic costs our drivers over $100 billion annually. Airport delays cost another $22 billion. Or we could get to work on education. If graduation rates don’t increase, we will have a shortage of 5 million workers by 2020 — not because we lack the manpower, but because the jobs will require education that our students aren’t receiving. We could clean up our air: MIT researchers found that pollution kills more than 200,000 Americans every year — more than traffic accidents, homicides, suicides and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. There are so many real problems that need solving.

But distracting, divisive laws like the one Indiana initially passed aren’t just bad for the country, they’re also bad for our party.

In California, the GOP has seen the danger of focusing on the wrong issues. In 2007, Republicans made up nearly 35 percent of our registered voters. By 2009, our share dropped to 31 percent, and today, it is a measly 28 percent. That sharp drop started just after the divisive battle over Proposition 8. Maybe that’s a coincidence, but there is no question that our party is losing touch with our voters, especially with the younger ones who are growing the registration rolls.

I know what you’re thinking: “You Californians are eccentric. My state is different. That’s not going to happen here.”

You’re wrong. All you have to do is look at the response to Indiana’s law on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or pretty much wherever young people congregate and discuss what is important to them.

Both sides of the Indiana debate used Twitter to voice their support, and the result couldn’t be clearer. According to Zignal Labs, as of Wednesday night, #StandWithIndiana had been tweeted 5,571 times. Meanwhile, #BoycottIndiana was tweeted 430,728 times.

Take a quick look at Reddit’s r/news top stories for the week — there have been more than 15,000 comments on this issue, overwhelmingly in opposition to the Indiana law.

Polls show that laws like this are not supported by independents, women, minorities or Americans between 18 and 29. Nor are they supported by big business, as evidenced by NASCAR, the NBA and Wal-Mart’s public, vocal opposition.

Those businesses are doing the right thing, but they have also done the math. As a party, we need to take a similarly realistic look. Indiana’s politicians clearly didn’t expect the response the law received, but it is heartening to see that they’ve taken steps in the right direction, just as it is reassuring to see that Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas listened to the outrage over Indiana and decided to veto a similar law. But I want to be absolutely certain that all of my fellow Republicans everywhere got the message. What happened in Indiana should be a teachable moment for us.

If the Republican Party wants the next generation of voters to listen to our ideas and solutions to real problems, we must be an inclusive and open party, not a party of divisions. We must be the party of limited government, not the party that legislates love. We must be the party that stands for equality and against discrimination in any form.

We must be the party that originally attracted this young Austrian immigrant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/03/schwarzenegger-indianas-religious-freedom-law-is-bad-for-america-and-bad-for-republicans/

April 04, 2015 10:22 AM  
Anonymous where is my hair brush? said...

"protecting the right of Christians to opt out of any involvement in gay marriage ceremonies was a primary goal"

well, why should they have to involve themselves in immoral behavior

you wouldn't make a Jewish deli cater a pig roast

you wouldn't make a Muslim photographer do a shoot at a bachelor's party in a strip club

face it, the gay agenda seeks to impose the moral view in others

it's basic totalitarianism

in any way they can, they seek to intimidate and impoverish anyone who won't participate in their activities

truth is, the media-celebrity-business complex lied about this and whipped up a frenzy about nothing

these laws, in existence for years, have generally been applied to prisoners from minority religion who have particular grooming requirements

unfortunately, we're seeing how tolerance can become imposition

you won't like the backlash when it comes

April 04, 2015 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bakers bake cakes in their places of business.

Nobody is asking any baker to do something they don't already do, bake a cake.

Kosher "Jewish" delis do not serve pork so it is not something they already do. Being forced to cook pork would be forcing them to do something they don't already do, whereas baking yet another cake does not force any baker to do something they don't already do.

I do not know about Muslims feel about bachelor's parties at strip clubs, but I think there are a lot more heterosexual bridegrooms who would have bachelor parties at strip clubs than homosexuals.

Impoverish? LMAO Have you noted how much on-line hate money has been raised for Memories Pizza? $842,592 so far and counting.

They can retire if they invest it wisely.

I guess you missed the backlash this week -- it's why IN and AL decided to change their attempt to legalize discrimination against gays, which only one other state still allows, Texas.

Reminder:

"the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language."

April 04, 2015 11:45 AM  
Anonymous shawowza! said...

"Bakers bake cakes in their places of business.

Nobody is asking any baker to do something they don't already do, bake a cake."

they don't usually place a couple of guys together on the top or write "Happy Nuptials, Gary & Steve"; nobody is just flat out refusing to bake cakes for anyone with a lisp and a limp wrist; it would only happen when they go out of their way to make clear it's for a gay "wedding"; wedding cakes are generally delivered to the reception venue, btw; few people get 'em to go

"Kosher "Jewish" delis do not serve pork so it is not something they already do. Being forced to cook pork would be forcing them to do something they don't already do,"

I didn't say they cooked the pork

they shouldn't be forced to deliver any food to such an event

this law would protect that right

"I do not know about Muslims feel about bachelor's parties at strip clubs,"

just to clear it up, they're against it

they also oppose alcohol consumption

a Muslim in the photography business shouldn't be forced to immortalize the event

"but I think there are a lot more heterosexual bridegrooms who would have bachelor parties at strip clubs than homosexuals."

obviously

if gays want to see guys strip, they can go to any gathering of gays and ask

but, and you wouldn't know this from reading the hype from the media-celebrity-business complex, the original law said nothing about homosexuality and these laws rarely are used in a dispute between gays and straights

the law would have protected Muslims from having to provide a service for any gathering which conflicts with their religious beliefs

homosexuals were just afraid people would use this law to avoid participation in gay "weddings", but the law said nothing of the kind

it could be used that way, but so what?

it would only be necessary in a locality where gays have been designated a protected class

but, in such places, gays would have little trouble finding businesses to provide them service

btw, is a supply of professionally prepared cakes actually essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

if gay advocates weren't pursuing a vicious campaign to impoverish religious people in Indiana, this would be quite silly and funny

April 04, 2015 1:26 PM  
Anonymous shawowza! said...

"Impoverish? LMAO Have you noted how much on-line hate money has been raised for Memories Pizza? $842,592 so far and counting."

that's nice but this just got a lot of publicity

the intent of gays, however, from Chik-Fil_A to Memories Pizza is to impoverish anyone who would dare to disagree with the gay agenda

Memories didn't seek publicity and it is likely they never turned away a gay starving for pizza

a reporter in Indianapolis went around to very restaurant in town, asking if they would cater a gay wedding

most said yes but this guy said no to this hypothetical question

by command of the High Supreme Commander of the Gay Agenda, such a business cannot stand

it must be destroyed, by any means necessary

there are already several examples of people losing their businesses because their deemed they had to provide services to gay "weddings" and their area had no RFRA

"I guess you missed the backlash this week -- it's why IN and AL decided to change their attempt to legalize discrimination against gays,"

that wasn't backlash

that was a lash from the big money overseers of our society, the media-celebrity-business complex

the backlash will be from the man on the street

"the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language."

how do you enforce a law without government involvement, you idiot?

a government entity is involved in any law, by definition

remember this: after all this, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gays everywhere in Indiana except a few urban areas

they are treated like everyone else

which makes them the second coming of the Nazi Party, if you listen to the media-celebrity-business complex

April 04, 2015 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Godwin's Law said...

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

April 05, 2015 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Recent Headlines.... said...

Christian Lawyer Proposes Bill to Execute Gay People With Bullets to the Head

vs.

Yelp Users Troll Indiana Pizzeria That Refuses To Cater Gay Weddings

Which sounds more like Nazis to you?

April 05, 2015 9:46 AM  
Anonymous dyeing eggs said...

ah, but the commenter just prior to yours wasn't comparing his opponents to Nazis

he was objecting to his opponents calling religious people Nazis

see the difference?

even someone with your limited intelligence should get it

btw, a couple of days ago, everyone was talking about the "firestorm" against the Indiana RFRA

and there were threats of economic boycotts by the gay CEO of Apple and that sophisticated, twerking cultural icon, Miley Cyrus

and the media acted like the wrongness of the RFRA was a settled issue, beyond discussion

strangely missing from coverage was any polls of Indiana citizens or Americans

I finally found a poll, buried on the internet, from February

59% of Americans believe religious people shouldn't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding

now, comes this:

Memories Pizza: never declined to serve a gay person pizza and never catered a wedding reception yet when the owner was asked by the media, which was canvassing the state's eating establishments, she said she wouldn't cater a gay wedding

violent threats were forthcoming and the owner was forced to close down

an internet campaign was raised to support Memories

raised 842k

an opposing campaign tried to counter and raised 14k

this is very similar to when gays tried to boycott Chik-Fil_A because its owner didn't agree with gay marriage

Chik-Fil_A wound up getting mobbed with supporters buying chicken sandwiches and a gay "kiss-in" protest drew scant support

don't get me wrong: numbers and popularity don't make one right

but gay advocates keep citing this widespread support for their outlandish views as justification

and if they start a boycott war, they will lose

I don't think Apple would survive if every opponent of gay marriage were to boycott them

they would be well advised to limit the debate to words and stop trying to economically bully others

they may get more of a response than they bargained for

April 05, 2015 9:49 AM  
Anonymous play's the thing said...

"Christian Lawyer Proposes Bill to Execute Gay People With Bullets to the Head

vs.

Yelp Users Troll Indiana Pizzeria That Refuses To Cater Gay Weddings

Which sounds more like Nazis to you?"

they both sound morally repulsive, like the Nazis, although the mob beer hall riots where the Nazis got their start is more akin to the death threats against the pizza place

some oddball lawyer stands no chance of getting something like that passed

the internet trolls might carry through on their threats

but no religious people have accused the anti-RFRA of being Nazis

the gay advocates have accused Indiana of acting like the Third Reich

April 05, 2015 9:56 AM  
Anonymous a pleasant opening day for baseball said...

did you know a team of climate scientists, including Michael Mann, second only to Al Gore in the alarmist movement have now conceded that global warming has paused?

that's right, and they've written a paper explaining their THEORY why

their theory is actually based on what climate "deniers" have been saying for years

and it's only the latest theory explaining the end of global warming

by one count, it's the 53rd explanation in the last few years

but what's significant is they've come clean and admitted the pause exists

oh, they say it's coming back but they've admitted it's stopped for now

when will they take the next step and concede that there is no rational reason to believe the dire predictions they've been making for years?

obviously, they will have to sooner or later

the future is arriving every day:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/grasping-for-pause-ible-deniability-on-climate-change/

April 06, 2015 8:48 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

When did I threaten to hurt you? It doesn't sound like something I would say. Before you make accusations, can you check your references? Keep in mind that, while you are anonymous here, I am not.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is an accusation up with which I will not put.

Seriously, can you check the reference? I really don't think I said that.

rrjr

April 08, 2015 6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The culture war argument is over and conservatives have lost. Some of them just don’t know it yet.

That’s the takeaway from the remarkable events of last week wherein the states of Indiana and Arkansas executed high-speed U-turns — we’re talking skid marks on the tarmac — on the subject of marriage equality. Legislatures in both states, you will recall, had passed so-called “religious freedom” laws designed to allow businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples. In Indiana, the governor had already signed the bill and was happily dissembling about the discriminatory nature and intent of the new law.

Then reality landed like the Marines at Guadalcanal.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence made a fool of himself on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” five times refusing to answer a simple yes or no question about whether the bill would protect a business that refused to serve gay people. Angie’s List, which is headquartered in the state, delayed a planned expansion. NASCAR, the NCAA, the NFL, the NBA, the WNBA, and a host of businesses condemned the law. Conventions pulled out and some states and cities even banned government-funded travel to Indiana.

Down in Arkansas, where similar legislation awaited his signature, Gov. Asa Hutchinson was no doubt watching with interest as Pence was metaphorically shot full of holes. Then he received a tap on the shoulder from a very heavy hand. Walmart, the largest retailer on Earth, born and headquartered in Arkansas, urged a veto, saying the bill “does not reflect the values we proudly uphold.”

Both governors promptly got, ahem, religion. Hutchinson sent the measure back to legislators for revision. Pence signed a measure to “fix” a law whose glories he had spent so much time touting.

And here, a little context might be instructive. Twenty years ago, you recall, we were essentially arguing over the right of gay people to exist. The debate then was over whether they could serve in the military, adopt children, be fired or denied housing because of their sexuality, Ten years ago, public opinion on most of those issues having swung decisively, we were fighting over whether or not they could get married. Ten years later, that point pretty much conceded, we are arguing over who should bake the cake.

The very parameters of the debate have shifted dramatically to the dreaded left. Positions the GOP took proudly just 20 years ago now seem prehistoric and its motivations for doing so, threadbare. This is not about morality, the constitution or faith. It never was.

No, this is about using the law to validate the primal sense of “ick” that still afflicts some heterosexuals at the thought of boys who like boys and girls who like girls. And the solution to their problem is three words long: Get over it.

Or, get left behind.

April 08, 2015 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When did I threaten to hurt you? It doesn't sound like something I would say. Before you make accusations, can you check your references? Keep in mind that, while you are anonymous here, I am not."

that's true

my apologies

I shouldn't have mentioned a name

I'm almost certain it was you but, again, I considered it rhetoric

and I agree, it doesn't sound like you, which may be why I remember it

"To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is an accusation up with which I will not put."

I saw that quote somewhere else recently

anyway, I don't blame you

for now, I'll concede it's an unsubstantiated rumor

"Seriously, can you check the reference? I really don't think I said that."

I tried but I can't ever find anything using the search engine

I don't know if the comments are too vast, or maybe the words are too vague

if anyone else knows any secrets let me know

btw, I should never have thrown this out there

while technically not advisable, people will often say things "I'm gonna kill you" and not mean it

no big thing, and until we get confirmation, everyone assume I made it up

April 08, 2015 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Twenty years ago, you recall, we were essentially arguing over the right of gay people to exist."

in 1995?

that's a lie

in the mid 1970's, the most popular musical act was a gay piano player named Elton John

in the late 1970's, for a couple of years, a show with a main character, played by Billy Crystal was gay

no one even suggested they couldn't exist

"The debate then was over whether they could serve in the military,"

a bad idea

"adopt children,"

a horrible idea

"be fired or denied housing because of their sexuality,"

this is currently legal in most places in America, including most parts of Indiana

why not?

it's legal to discriminate for most reasons

why is sexuality some sacred cow?

"Ten years ago, public opinion on most of those issues having swung decisively, we were fighting over whether or not they could get married."

hate to break it to you, but there was little "fighting"

until about three years ago, there was a bipartisan consensus opposed to gay "marriage"

ask Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

"Ten years later, that point pretty much conceded, we are arguing over who should bake the cake."

no, we are fighting over whether you can be forced to participate in activities you can consider immoral

interestingly, we've always allowed conscientious objectors to military service

but, somehow, the nation can't stand unless religious people are forced to work on gay "weddings"?

please

this is about a group with totalitarian impulses trying to impose their morality on others

"The very parameters of the debate have shifted dramatically to the dreaded left."

and how did that happen?

by media, coastal celebrities, leftist businesses that get away with Gilded Age abuses because they contribute to Democrats, and judicial activism

there has been little confirmation at the ballot box

only six years, our most liberal large state, California, rejected gay "marriage"

"Positions the GOP took proudly just 20 years ago now seem prehistoric and its motivations for doing so, threadbare."

by the media-celebrity-tech business complex

most Americans are not part of this complex

"This is not about morality, the constitution or faith. It never was."

the current controversy about forcing businesses to participate in certain activities is all about those things

"No, this is about using the law to validate the primal sense of “ick” that still afflicts some heterosexuals at the thought of boys who like boys and girls who like girls."

actually, gays have used the law to invalidate this primal sense and what you call "validate" is simply an attempt to ameliorate some of the most egregious effects of these laws taking away basic freedom of association and giving special protection to gays

but, you know, I've always said those who persecute gays are not religious people but those repulsed by them and you've strenuously argued that it is only a religious issue

glad to see you're coming around

"And the solution to their problem is three words long: Get over it."

new government role: to tell people what is and isn't "icky"

"Or, get left behind."

media-celebrity-tech business complex has lost before

leaders don't ride waves, they make them

April 08, 2015 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"discrimination is discrimination"

saw a discussion in the past week where this was said to someone arguing for protection from being forced to participate in immoral activities

yes, discrimination is discrimination

but most discrimination is not only legal, it is vital to our society

if someone wants to lease an apartment and their credit report indicates they can't afford it,

the landlord discriminates

if a slobby, disrespectful guy wants to date your daughter,

you discriminate

if someone wants to adopt a German Shepherd from a pet shelter but live in a studio apartment

the shelter discriminates

there are numerous examples of businesses with conflict of interest rules, independence rules, etc that require discrimination

the question is not whether discrimination is allowed

it's when it should be illegal

the answer is only when it would result insurmountable hardship

is that the situation for gays?

based on all these polls showing the public thinks homosexuality is hunky dory, I'd say no

the wedding thing is absolutely ridiculous

there is a multi-multi-billion wedding service industry falling all over themselves trying to grab a piece of the growing gay "wedding" business

what hardship are gays suffering?


April 08, 2015 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned."

Barack Obama, April 7, 2015

This from the President who doesn't want to offend anyone by discussing Islamic terrorism.

This is the second time recently that Obama has criticized Christians.

As leader of a country where the state is not supposed to advance nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, are these remarks appropriate?

April 08, 2015 11:43 AM  
Anonymous no one cares said...

President Obama is failing to persuade voters to move climate change up from the absolute bottom of their list of concerns.

He has tried a myriad of ways to raise anxiety over climate change, linking warming temperatures to national security, the economy and most recently on Tuesday, public health.

Still, most people rank climate change among their lowest priorities, even as Obama stakes his legacy on aggressive unilateral moves to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama's primary challenge has been convincing Americans global warming is an immediate threat and that the United States will face devastating consequences unless consumers make dramatic changes in energy use and accept greater government restrictions on fossil fuel sources, such as coal-burning power plants.

But public sentiment indicates Americans might like the president to spend even less time dealing with global warming.

When the Pew Research Center in January asked Americans to rank their top priorities, global warming came in 22nd out of 23 options, placing ahead only of global trade. Thirty-eight percent of respondents rated the issue a "top priority for Obama and Congress," with nearly twice as many Americans saying the same of terrorism and the economy.

April 08, 2015 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Thanks.

I love the Churchill quote. It's a grammaticist's comeuppance to to a grammar nazi.

April 08, 2015 12:32 PM  
Anonymous obama lies said...

President Obama’s new deportation amnesty will remain halted, a federal judge in Texas ruled Tuesday night in an order that also delivered a judicial spanking to the president’s lawyers for misleading the court.

Judge Andrew S. Hanen, who first halted the amnesty in February, just two days before it was to take effect, said he’s even more convinced of his decision now, particularly after Mr. Obama earlier this year said he intends for his policies to supersede federal laws.

Judge Hanen pointed to Mr. Obama’s comments at a February town hall when the president warned immigration agents to adhere to his policies or else face “consequences.”

“In summary, the chief executive has ordered that the laws requiring removal of illegal immigrants that conflict with the 2014 DHS directive are not to be enforced, and that anyone who attempts to do so will be punished,” Judge Hanen wrote.

“This is not merely ineffective enforcement. This is total non-enforcement,” the judge continued, saying that Mr. Obama’s own descriptions of how he is carrying out his policies have hurt his case.

Mr. Obama in November announced a new amnesty for illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. The amnesty could apply to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.

Texas and 25 other states sued to stop Mr. Obama, and Judge Hanen sided with them, finding that they suffered an economic harm from the policy, granting them standing in court, and then finding that the president broke the law in bypassing Congress to announce his policy.

The administration has appealed Judge Hanen’s ruling, but also asked the judge to reconsider.

On Tuesday the judge not only refused to reconsider, but also said the administration misled him when it said no part of the amnesty had been implemented, and the lawyers bungled their attempt to try to repair the damage by filing an “advisory” with the judge early last month.

April 08, 2015 2:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Most Americans side with gays in "religious freedom" disputes

"A majority of Americans believe businesses should not be allowed to refuse services based on their religious beliefs in the wake of controversies in Indiana and Arkansas over gay rights and religious freedom, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday.

The poll, conducted April 6 to 8, also found that 52 percent of Americans support allowing same-sex couples to marry, far more than the 32 percent who oppose it.

The survey results suggest a split over the issue between Americans and some of the politicians who represent them.
The poll found solid opposition to allowing businesses to refuse services or refuse to hire people or groups based on religious beliefs.

Fifty-four percent said it was wrong for businesses to refuse services, while 28 percent said they should have that right. And 55 percent said businesses should not have the right to refuse to hire certain people or groups based on the employer's religious beliefs, while 27 percent said businesses should have the right."

As Wyatt/bad anonymous says:
"The gay agenda is going down in flames! Flames I tell ya!".

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

April 09, 2015 1:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Indiana's Religious Conservatives Surrender

⦁ That was quick. Indiana legislators appear to be caving to pressure from businesses (and just about everyone else), and are preparing a "⦁ fix" to their religious-liberty law that will prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians.

⦁ The original ⦁ language allowed "a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened" to use that imposition as a legal defense. In other words, if you sue me for denying you service because I don't approve of your gay marriage, I can defend myself in court on religious grounds. ⦁ Indiana Governor Mike Pence took pains to say that the law wouldn't condone discrimination. But no one was buying it. Ergo, the "fix."

Cultural conservatives interpret this as a case of world-class bullying. Some complain that the backlash to the law reveals that liberals just don't care about the sanctity of conservatives' religious views. Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner seemed genuinely irate about liberal contempt:

"Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have existed on the state and federal level for decades. What's new here -- the "wave" that's actually sweeping over the country -- is an emboldened and litigious cultural Left, unsated by its recent culture war victories, trying now to conscript the defeated soldiers at gunpoint."

Minus the militarism, he has a point.

Many liberals simply refuse to take seriously religious opposition to the mainstreaming of homosexuality. There are reasons for that -- and they're generally pretty compelling.

April 09, 2015 2:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

First, history shows that such scruples tend to be impermanent features of religious faith. They are instead culturally sensitive and highly adaptable. Indeed, opposing gay marriage through a muddled, convoluted law is itself a massive retreat from what was once wholesale vilification of the gay "lifestyle." (Apparently you can keep your gay lifestyle now, you just can't mimic a conservative, straight one.)

Like other strictures once justified on grounds of religion -- against miscegenation or divorce, for example -- opposition to gay rights is growing increasingly marginalized. This evolution is not quite the challenge to religion that some contend: Many religious Americans -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, others -- have embraced gay rights, including gay marriage. Religious faith is not the common denominator of resistance to gay equality; cultural conservatism is. White mainline Protestants are three times as likely to favor gay marriage as white evangelical Protestants. That's not a Christianity gulf, it's a culture gulch, shaped partly by age, region, class, education and politics.

Second, the nature of the issue ensures that liberals will accept nothing less than total surrender.

This is not true on every political front. In fact, most issues allow room for compromise. Liberals are pretty sure, for example, that they've debunked much of supply-side economics. They would no doubt appreciate a public surrender (along with a surtax on millionaires). But many would still happily meet supply-siders halfway on tax rates. Even abortion, with all the stridency evident on both sides, provides middle ground.

Gay rights is different. The most compelling argument in its favor rests on a (religiously inspired) belief in the universality of human dignity. Consequently, there is little ground for compromise: Either gays and lesbians share in society's full measure of dignity, or the battle for gay rights continues.

April 09, 2015 2:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The legal force of the law (and its Arkansas twin, which suddenly entered political limbo after the avalanche of criticism and boycott threats landed on Indiana) has been difficult to parse precisely because the law's discriminatory aims are more implied than stated. More than anything, the law came across as yet another symbolic yelp from conservatives who perceive themselves under siege. It put the state of Indiana on record as a land that frowns, not-quite-overtly, on gays and lesbians. And it supports your right to frown, too. What happens after that -- how far private citizens and businesses can go in making their displeasure manifest -- has never been clear.

As gay rights conquers ever larger swaths of popular culture (Nascar, folks) its champions grow more confident of total victory. "Religious liberty is the terms of surrender the Right is requesting in the culture war," Carney wrote. But liberals are not interested in negotiating a surrender on gay rights. They are on the cultural equivalent of Sherman's March. They will halt when they reach the sea. As it happens, much of the country is already there, wading in the water.

April 09, 2015 2:53 PM  
Anonymous randy alien said...

"The survey results suggest a split over the issue between Americans and some of the politicians who represent them"

well, these surveys are generally proven wrong whenever tested at, say, the ballot box

which is a place politicians like to win

we all remember California, an easy win for gay "marriage" six years ago

until the voting began

do tell us how many states' citizens have approved gay marriages

of course, the lunatic fringe tries to prevent votes, for just that reason

we saw that here in Maryland, where the nastiest trans were sent out to petition gathering sites to intimidate potential signers

and howzabout when the gay agenda crowd tries to translate this supposed vast public support to economic pressure

of, sure the gay CEO of Apple will try to economically bully Indiana

and sports leagues want very customer possible so they allow themselves to be pushed around by the media

but consumers never support these gay boycotts

Chik-Fil-A is booming after an attempted gay boycott resulted in massive backlash and Mike Huckabee encouraged Americans to eat there as much as possible

now, C-F-A is breaking out of the South and opening restaurants in Manhattan and DC

Memories Pizza?

gays threatened to burn the place down

Americans pledged 900K to help, virtually overnight

gays deftly punched back

they set up a counter site to raise money to stop Memories

tally: 15K

"anonymous says:
"The gay agenda is going down in flames! Flames I tell ya!".

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!"

when you and the other inmates at the funny farm stop cackling, please show where there is any sign of political or economic pressure being applied by the gay agenda against pro-family forces by this supposed tremendous support of the gay agenda by the public

politicians who oppose the gay agenda control the Senate, House of Representatives, governor mansions, state legislatures across the lands

businesses who oppose the gay agenda are booming

"The poll found solid opposition to allowing businesses to refuse services or refuse to hire people or groups based on religious beliefs."

probably is a result of the way the question is asked

most people think businesses legally have to serve anyone who walks in the door

that is true nowhere

an actual public discussion that isn't slanted by a biased media would reveal that to the general public and explain why it must be so

"Fifty-four percent said it was wrong for businesses to refuse services, while 28 percent said they should have that right"

wording

"wrong" and "illegal" are different concepts

beside this question says nothing about homosexuality

and it's vague

all polls I've read of specific situations, show support for religious people

most people don't think the religious conservative should have to deliver a wedding cake to help celebrate a gay wedding

"And 55 percent said businesses should not have the right to refuse to hire certain people or groups based on the employer's religious beliefs, while 27 percent said businesses should have the right."

vague and misleading question

April 09, 2015 8:07 PM  
Anonymous running down the stream, said...

"The legal force of the law (and its Arkansas twin, which suddenly entered political limbo after the avalanche of criticism and boycott threats landed on Indiana)"

avalanche?

there you go again, lunatics

changing the meaning of words

the criticism was celebrities and media

the boycotts were monopolistic businesses and publicity-crazed politicians

a lot of wealth, power and visibility

but there was little outcry from the public (despite the attempts of the Obama administration, we are still, technically, a democracy)

to call this over-privileged minority an "avalanche" is a lie we'll just euphemistically called "misleading"

"has been difficult to parse precisely because the law's discriminatory aims are more implied than stated"

in other words, you made it up

"More than anything, the law came across as yet another symbolic yelp from conservatives who perceive themselves under siege. It put the state of Indiana on record as a land that frowns, not-quite-overtly, on gays and lesbians. And it supports your right to frown, too."

the right to frown is constitutionally protected

the President has sworn to protect this right

did he lie?

"What happens after that -- how far private citizens and businesses can go in making their displeasure manifest -- has never been clear."

this actually had nothing to do with the right to express displeasure, although such a right is called free speech

it about protection from being coerced into participating in activities that contradict one's religious beliefs

previously to the work of the gay agenda, this right was assumed

indeed, the Federal law passed with the full support of Democrats, 97-3 in the Senate, signed by Bill Clinton

suddenly now, because these laws would free people from participating in gay celebrations, the Dems have changed their minds

"As gay rights conquers ever larger swaths of popular culture (Nascar, folks) its champions grow more confident of total victory. "Religious liberty is the terms of surrender the Right is requesting in the culture war," Carney wrote. But liberals are not interested in negotiating a surrender on gay rights. They are on the cultural equivalent of Sherman's March. They will halt when they reach the sea. As it happens, much of the country is already there, wading in the water."

the lack of respect for the beliefs of others is the kind of thing that has lead to wars in other countries

the reactions will likely vary

mainstream churches have embraced the gay agenda and their support for it one of the reasons their denominations have lost membership steadily for decades

most believing churches will refuse to comply and endure persecution without a commensurate response

and some may fight government suppression by fighting back, since the democratic route has been denied

all this is worth it so gays can walk into the bakeries of religious people and demand they help with their unbiblical "marriages"

April 09, 2015 11:34 PM  
Anonymous people are strange said...

I know, in your most reflective moments, most of you TTFers realize that you are real nut-jobs. You probably, though, wonder just how far gone you are. Here's a little self-test you can take. If you answer "yes" to more than one, you are an Priya-level lunatic beyond hope:

1. Do you believe abortion should be unrestricted and that even just a late-term abortion restriction is proof that there is a Republican “War on Women”?

2. Do you think the government should punish institutions that employ or host scientists who question claims about the impact of “man-made global warming”?

3. Do you believe that President Obama’s foreign policy has been mostly effective?

4. Do you want to raise taxes as a way to combat income inequality?

5. Do you think we should raise Social Security benefits?

6. Do you believe that after Obama’s 2009 inauguration, the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal?

7. Do you think Obamacare is effective and worth the cost?

8. Do you turn up the volume on the television whenever Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz gives an interview?

9. Do you think the Rev. Al Sharpton should continue to act as an adviser to the next president of the United States?

April 11, 2015 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First United Methodist church of Eureka Springs, Ark., just wanted to have a float in the city’s third annual Easter parade. However, their float was rejected after initially being accepted. According to the church, it was their acceptance of LGBT parishioners and their “Jesus Loves All” message that got them ousted from the event.

“They wanted to know what our banner was going to say, and it said ‘Jesus loves all,’” said church member Suzie Bell to Ozarks First. “They had decided that they did not want us in the parade, and that we weren’t welcome…It was based purely on our love and acceptance of the LGBT community.”

The parade admits that they didn’t want a potential diversion in their parade. Director Laura Nichols told the news station via written statement that:

"This day isn’t a day of pointing fingers or playing the blame game. This parade is to honor our Lord and Savior and for praising God for sending His only Son who willingly went to the cross, died and rose on the third day that when we repent of our sins and accept Him. We have the promise of eternal life with the Lord. But more than that He carries us each day that we are on this earth. We are all sinners redeemed by the grace of God. We believe that the Bible is the uncompromised Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit…

…we [don't] have anything against the homosexual community. When I worked downtown I had homosexual people that I considered my friends and still do."


It’s not entirely clear how a sign like “Jesus loves all” is “blame,” unless, of course, you feel guilty somehow that your church may be sending a message that Jesus does not in fact love everyone. If so, perhaps that’s more of an issue with your own congregation’s belief system and how it differs from the message of love and acceptance that everyone is a sinner that is inherent in the Christian faith.

Regardless, the incident shows what happens when two religious ideologies clash, even if both are allegedly from the same branch of Christianity. The parade felt that it could discriminate against First United, despite the fact that in doing so, the parade actually is denying the church its ability to practice its faith, unhindered.

April 11, 2015 12:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Global warming is a hoax.

Seas are rising because Jesus weeps every time a dollar that could have bought a bomb buys a child healthcare.

April 12, 2015 11:01 PM  
Anonymous that lucky ol' sun said...

as Priya the Stupid Liar knows well, seas are rising because it has been disproportionately warmer in the polar regions, even though, on average, global atmospheric temperatures have not risen in this millienium

ask Michael Mann, Priya, he'll splain the pause to you

April 13, 2015 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

04/10/15

Tornadoes hit northern Illinois: 'I've never seen anything like it in my life'

April 13, 2015 3:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"RSS: March Global Temperature Anomaly 0.26oC

12.4.2015 14:11 Age: 1 day

RSS reports global average temperature anomaly for the lower troposphere in March 2015 was 0.26oC

US firm Remote Sensing Systems reports data showing that the global atmospheric temperature anomaly in March 2015 was the ninth highest (jointly with 2006) since satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature began in 1979.

The global mean temperature anomaly for the lower troposphere in March 2015 was 0.26oC. This is below the 0.33oC anomaly reported in February ["global atmospheric temperature anomaly in February 2015 was the sixth highest since satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature began in 1979"] and the 0.37oC anomaly reported in January ["global average temperature anomaly for the lower troposphere in January 2015 was +0.37oC above the long term average making January the seventh warmest January in the satellite archive"].

Warmest Marches (1979-2015)
(Warmer than seasonal norms - anomaly oC)

2010 0.59

1998 0.59

2004 0.43

2007 0.35

2002 0.34

2005 0.31

1991 0.28

1983 0.27

2006 0.26

2015 0.26"

April 13, 2015 5:16 PM  
Anonymous take me to your leader said...

everyone agrees it's warmer now than 1979

the significant thing though is that it hasn't exceeded the peak reached in 1998

as Michael Mann and other recently conceded in a peer-reviewed paper, global warming has PAUSED in this millennium

so sad to pin all your hopes and dreams for catastrophe on a guess that didn't come true

maybe you can find something to be alarmed about

I hear the level of AI in the coming generation of robots is highly disturbing

April 13, 2015 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"as Michael Mann and other [sic] recently conceded in a peer-reviewed paper, global warming has PAUSED in this millennium"

No, they did not. They said the warming has slowed, it's not warming quite as fast as it has, but it is still warming.

"Let’s be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasn’t been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.

Although the ongoing increase is trouble, a slower rate is preferable. The question is: Why did the slowdown occur—and how long will it last? We now have an answer. Three well-known climate researchers have combined actual temperature readings from 1880 to 2010 with a slew of climate models and have concluded that the slowdown is caused by the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades.

The temperature of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, particularly the upper layers, goes through natural cycles of warmer and cooler, driven by large circulations of water across these and the rest of the world’s seas. Warmer and cooler periods can last several decades. The analysis shows that usually, when the northern Pacific is warming, the northern Atlantic is cooling, and vice versa—offsetting one another in their impact on atmospheric temperatures in the northern hemisphere. But the cycles, and their magnitude, don’t match exactly. For the past decade, the magnitude of northern Pacific cooling has been greater than that of northern Atlantic warming, resulting in a net slowdown in temperature rise, according to an email sent to me by Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, who led the new study.

Understanding these patterns matters because they can counteract or accelerate warming due to human activities. The paper concludes by noting that the two ocean oscillations have “offset anthropogenic warming over the past decade.” However, the authors go on to say that, based on the natural cycles over the past 130 years, the offset trend “will likely reverse…adding to anthropogenic warming in the coming decades.” The oscillations have slowed the warming due to human activities for a while, but when that effect inevitably ends the oscillations will instead add to human warming, raising the rate of increase.

So when will the super heat-up begin? The researchers did not design the study to create a precise timeline. But the historical patterns “suggest that right now we’re near the peak negative excursion, and very close to a turning point,” according to an email from Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and one of the paper’s three authors. Once that happens, Steinman noted, “warming will accelerate as a result.”"

April 13, 2015 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON -- The state of Indiana has hired a global public relations firm to help rebuild its image in the wake of national criticism that state politicians were hostile to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

The Indiana Economic Development Corporation, which leads the state's efforts to attract and retain businesses, has retained Porter Novelli for an undisclosed sum. The firm's task is to brand Indiana "as a welcoming place to live, visit and do business."

"Now more than ever, we want to remind the world that Hoosiers welcome everyone and that Indiana is a great place for individuals, entrepreneurs and businesses to reach their full potential," said Indiana Secretary of Commerce Victor Smith, who leads the IEDC. "That's why we are moving forward with this initiative together."

...Late last month, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed a "religious freedom" measure into law that would have allowed any individual or corporation to cite religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party, potentially opening up the door to businesses turning away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.

Pence and the state's GOP-controlled legislature faced a swift national backlash, with businesses, celebrities, LGBT activists and others criticizing the move and promising to keep their money out of Indiana. Politicians in other states took advantage of Indiana's misfortune and encouraged businesses in the state to move to their locales.

Under pressure, Pence eventually signed a revised measure to clarify that the law does not allow businesses to deny goods or services to LGBT customers.

The Human Rights Campaign released new polling Monday finding strong opposition ["...By a 2:1 margin, Indiana voters believe businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, even if this service violates their religious beliefs. In this outcome, Indiana voters reflect much of the national polling looking at reactions to self-titled religious freedom legislation in Indiana, Arkansas and many other states..."] to allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBT customers. Three-quarters of voters surveyed by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research also said the controversy surrounding the new law was bad for business. Pence also seemed to take a hit, with 53 percent saying his signing of the bill made them feel unfavorable toward the governor; only 38 percent felt favorable.

April 13, 2015 9:12 PM  
Anonymous chicken little's normal brother said...

the excerpt from the Science article is quite humorous throughout but this is the funniest line, I think:

"And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades."

oh, sometime, IN THE NEXT FEW DECADES, the "slowdown" will end?

or, at least, that's what the former alarmists' analysis SUGGESTS?

oh brother

I've got an idea, let's just drop the whole topic until we actually know anything beside the FACT that the climate in the 3rd millennium as, thus far, been amazingly stable

so, we're vastly better off than they thought we'd be so we don't have to run around screaming about the sky falling

and not for the next FEW DECADES

hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

April 13, 2015 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Human Rights Campaign released new polling"

glad someone found an unbiased observer to hire a pollster

if the polls read, "do you think someone who believes that gay marriage is wrong should be forced by the government to put one on if any gays happen to tell them to?", you'd get a different answer

if any government tries to force such a thing, they will get civil disobedience, which is the counsel of scripture in such circumstance

it will likely go to the Supreme Court

if that happens, how they rule will determine the fate of America

April 13, 2015 9:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

glad someone found an unbiased observer to hire a pollster

Yeah.

Me too.

Here's how another hired pollster helped his client and as we all learned, only one big poll on election day disclosed the truth, as it will again:

Mitt Romney Internal Polls Made Republican Think He'd Win.

Resulting in some of the best TV of 2012:

Turd Blossom's melt down on Fox News

What else did the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research polling find out about Pence's blunder, which caused him to pirouette?

They asked "As you may have heard, Governor Mike Pence recently signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which:

Some people say allows business owners to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity? And other people say protects business owners from acting against their own religious beliefs.

Generally speaking, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Governor Mike Pence for signing this bill into law?


and found

"Among younger voters, who strongly support LGBT rights generally and strongly oppose discrimination in this survey, 73 percent describe their impression of Pence as unfavorable in reaction to this issue. Even among Republicans, 29 percent suggest this issue has soured their impression of Pence, but the real impact is among swing voters (53 percent unfavorable, 25 percent favorable among Independents). And this is not an incumbent who can afford to alienate swing voters right now.

Overall reaction to Mike Pence is mixed. Before this controversy, Governor Pence was very popular. Right now, he is not. In a February, 2015 survey publicly released by the Indiana Realtors Association, a 62 percent majority approved of Pence. In this current survey, only 43 percent describe his job performance as “excellent” or“good,” including just 39 percent of women and 22 percent of younger voters.

When Pence is paired against potential Democratic challenger John Gregg, he only manages 47 percent of the vote share (47 percent for Gregg). A 47 – 47 percent statistical margin is singularly unimpressive in a state where Republicans and Independent-lean Republicans outnumber Democrats and Democratic-leaners by a 50 to 39 percent margin.

Conclusion

Governor Pence and other conservatives in Indiana likely believed this issue would energize their base; in fact, it has divided Republicans while alienating swing voters, younger voters and, as suggested in media coverage, much of the business community in Indiana. Little wonder Pence beat a hasty—if also incomplete—retreat on this issue. But politicians in other states, and even politicians in red states like Indiana, now enjoy fair warning that voters do not support discrimination, however justified."

April 14, 2015 8:01 AM  
Anonymous trapeze artist said...

"What else did the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research polling find out about Pence's blunder, which caused him to pirouette?"

Pence's blunder was to not stand against bullying by the big business-celebrity complex

these hypocrites routinely cavort and do business with regimes that imprison, torture and execute gays and they are trying to tell us they can't abide a government not letting gays force people to participate in their "wedding" rituals?

Pence was right and shouldn't have backed down for the sake of money

the businesses have more to lose if they only do business on the west coast and half the east

Some people say allows business owners to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity? And other people say protects business owners from acting against their own religious beliefs.

Generally speaking, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Governor Mike Pence for signing this bill into law?

"Among younger voters, who strongly support LGBT rights generally and strongly oppose discrimination in this survey, 73 percent describe their impression of Pence as unfavorable in reaction to this issue. Even among Republicans, 29 percent suggest this issue has soured their impression of Pence, but the real impact is among swing voters (53 percent unfavorable, 25 percent favorable among Independents)."

looks like you've judiciously excluded some demographics there

like, the total electorate

also, from your disingenuous wording, it isn't apparent if all the results are to the same question

"And this is not an incumbent who can afford to alienate swing voters right now."

sounds like the Dems in 2016

they're in trouble

"Governor Pence and other conservatives in Indiana likely believed this issue would energize their base;"

actually, they were doing the right thing

you should try it

"Little wonder Pence beat a hasty—if also incomplete—retreat on this issue. But politicians in other states, and even politicians in red states like Indiana, now enjoy fair warning that voters do not support discrimination, however justified."

actually, they do

you are free to discriminate against anyone who is not in a protected class anywhere in America

there are vast swaths of America where homosexuals are not a protected class and judging by the reaction of big business, there would seem little justification for them being a protected class anywhere

all Pence did was say in the view places in Indiana where gays are a protection class, this protection should not be interpreted to mean gays can force religious people to participate in activities they consider immoral

this is not a close call

Pence was right

don't lost in the current circus-like atmosphere

history won't be kind to this current version of mob rule

April 14, 2015 11:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home