Indiana-Is a great place to be a bigot....

[Overpaid Union Thug]

It guarantees both, because you can't have one without the other.
Freedom of Religion Requires Freedom From Religion

That article is rhetorical nonsense and is full of circular reasoning. The First Amendment is crystal clear. The government can't make a law establishing a religion...meaning....they can't force someone to practice a certain religion. If a government, whether it be federal, state, or local wants to show support of a religion in any way it should be able to. That is not the same as forcing anyone to participate. Freedom FROM religion was meant to be the responsibility of the individual. If one doesn't want to be a Christian then don't be a Christian. Unfortunately....activists judges (and gutless ones acting out of fear of backlash) and their resulting precedents have paved the way for the constant twisting and downright misinterpretation of the amendment.

 

[MrFedEx]

That article is rhetorical nonsense and is full of circular reasoning. The First Amendment is crystal clear. The government can't make a law establishing a religion...meaning....they can't force someone to practice a certain religion. If a government, whether it be federal, state, or local wants to show support of a religion in any way it should be able to. That is not the same as forcing anyone to participate. Freedom FROM religion was meant to be the responsibility of the individual. If one doesn't want to be a Christian then don't be a Christian. Unfortunately....activists judges (and gutless ones acting out of fear of backlash) and their resulting precedents have paved the way for the constant twisting and downright misinterpretation of the amendment.

So, we are free from religion...you just said so. And you are free to be Crusader the Christian, while Ahmed is free to praise Allah. "Activist judges" are those that don't interpret the law as you see fit, so it doesn't mean they are gutless or wrong...just not in agreement with your narrow views.

I guess the Supreme Court wasn't "activist" when it decided the hobby Lobby case or Citizens United.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

So, we are free from religion...you just said so. And you are free to be Crusader the Christian, while Ahmed is free to praise Allah. "Activist judges" are those that don't interpret the law as you see fit, so it doesn't mean they are gutless or wrong...just not in agreement with your narrow views.

I guess the Supreme Court wasn't "activist" when it decided the hobby Lobby case or Citizens United.

Wow. My post went riiiiiiiiiiight over your head. LOL! Of course we are free from religion. But it's up to us as individuals to FREELY practice, or not practice, a religion. Activist judges interpret things based on their opinions instead of The Constitution. They are just as dangerous to this country as any of it's enemies outside of it's borders. Now I'm sorry if that's doesn't fall in line with what's being constantly regurgitated in your Twitter world but some of us prefer ACTUAL Constitutional language instead of the feelings of a bunch of Twitterbugs and armchair activist judges that angrily make threats against those that are simply practicing their Constitutionally protected rights (or used to be anyway) and only ask that others respect their beliefs.

 

[wkmac]

Gov't is not free, it entails a cost. For gov't to invoke a privilege upon anything, ANYTHING, therefore comes at a cost. To assert that invoking any privilege is not a force seems to me as error on the part of the asserting party because said cost requires some manner of force to assure not just payment but then some level of recognition of the privilege authorized and backed by the State.

Also seems to me a basic fundamental operation of economics as the action on the part of one to the benefit of another will require some exchange at the very least for the labor based on time exerted of those who work on behalf of the State. Even a written gov't decree of a purely ceremonial nature invokes a cost upon all taxpayers and said taxes at the end of the day are collected by a means of force standing behind the compulsory commands. At the end of the day, Indiana lawmakers who passed the legislation in question imposed a cost upon everyone in that at the very least their wages for time spent on said bill is a burden on all taxpayers in the manner of an economic force. Any privileged on behalf of some is always paid by all. Even when the privilege is a harm.

Seems to me this issue is as fundamental as understanding the concept of Positive and Negative Rights. I'm a strong advocate of negative rights while seems to me Indiana engaged in creating Positive Rights. I agree under the negative rights of free association and the right to contract, ANY BUSINESS OWNER has the right to choose with whom they want to do business BUT at the same time this also requires the State to eliminate all market hurdles and walls where for example if the pizza place said "no gay customers", said gay customer could go home, make pizzas out of the kitchen and enter the marketplace in direct competition or even open a business right next door. Zoning laws are the first market barrier to such outcome and therefore the pizza place enjoys a market privilege that protects them from truly open market competition.

As a radical market anarchist, I would crush such market barriers in the first place and then let people discriminate against potential customers all they want as this would now be economic folly IMO.

 

[realbrown1]

Gov't is not free, it entails a cost. For gov't to invoke a privilege upon anything, ANYTHING, therefore comes at a cost. To assert that invoking any privilege is not a force seems to me as error on the part of the asserting party because said cost requires some manner of force to assure not just payment but then some level of recognition of the privilege authorized and backed by the State.

Also seems to me a basic fundamental operation of economics as the action on the part of one to the benefit of another will require some exchange at the very least for the labor based on time exerted of those who work on behalf of the State. Even a written gov't decree of a purely ceremonial nature invokes a cost upon all taxpayers and said taxes at the end of the day are collected by a means of force standing behind the compulsory commands. At the end of the day, Indiana lawmakers who passed the legislation in question imposed a cost upon everyone in that at the very least their wages for time spent on said bill is a burden on all taxpayers in the manner of an economic force. Any privileged on behalf of some is always paid by all. Even when the privilege is a harm.

Seems to me this issue is as fundamental as understanding the concept of Positive and Negative Rights. I'm a strong advocate of negative rights while seems to me Indiana engaged in creating Positive Rights. I agree under the negative rights of free association and the right to contract, ANY BUSINESS OWNER has the right to choose with whom they want to do business BUT at the same time this also requires the State to eliminate all market hurdles and walls where for example if the pizza place said "no gay customers", said gay customer could go home, make pizzas out of the kitchen and enter the marketplace in direct competition or even open a business right next door. Zoning laws are the first market barrier to such outcome and therefore the pizza place enjoys a market privilege that protects them from truly open market competition.

As a radical market anarchist, I would crush such market barriers in the first place and then let people discriminate against potential customers all they want as this would now be economic folly IMO.

Pure garbage.

A case of, If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them them with your bullsheet.

This is a simple case.

If you run a business, you should be able to cater to those who you choose.

End of story.

 

[superballs63]

Israel is a Jewish country. Israel opposes the deal. The senators are Jewish. The senators oppose this deal.

You don't say!! I'd think Jews would vote Republican, the Dumbs spend too much. Jewish people are pretty careful aboht npt spending too much

 

[MrFedEx]

Wow. My post went riiiiiiiiiiight over your head. LOL! Of course we are free from religion. But it's up to us as individuals to FREELY practice, or not practice, a religion. Activist judges interpret things based on their opinions instead of The Constitution. They are just as dangerous to this country as any of it's enemies outside of it's borders. Now I'm sorry if that's doesn't fall in line with what's being constantly regurgitated in your Twitter world but some of us prefer ACTUAL Constitutional language instead of the feelings of a bunch of Twitterbugs and armchair activist judges that angrily make threats against those that are simply practicing their Constitutionally protected rights (or used to be anyway) and only ask that others respect their beliefs.

Nothing you say goes over my head, genius.

OK, so in your opinion Scalia-types who are strict interpreters of the Constitution are the only way? He actually tries to place himself back in 1776 and look at the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers did, which doesn't really work because a lot has changed in almost 250 years. Like it or not, society evolves over time, and the Founding Fathers couldn't have possibly imagined some of those changes. One of the great things about our laws is that they were designed to evolve as well.

You can freely practice your religion, as long as that practice does not infringe on the equal rights of others. Scalia and other judges like him probably see it your way, but most people disagree with the concept of "time-travel" back to 1776 in an attempt to see things through the eyes of the framers of the Constitution.

You're a dinosaur, and your time on Earth is about over. More intelligent and evolved people are moving into leadership...those that recognize that our society and laws must evolve over time.

 

[realbrown1]

Nothing you say goes over my head, genius.

OK, so in your opinion Scalia-types who are strict interpreters of the Constitution are the only way? He actually tries to place himself back in 1776 and look at the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers did, which doesn't really work because a lot has changed in almost 250 years. Like it or not, society evolves over time, and the Founding Fathers couldn't have possibly imagined some of those changes. One of the great things about our laws is that they were designed to evolve as well.

You can freely practice your religion, as long as that practice does not infringe on the equal rights of others. Scalia and other judges like him probably see it your way, but most people disagree with the concept of "time-travel" back to 1776 in an attempt to see things through the eyes of the framers of the Constitution.

You're a dinosaur, and your time on Earth is about over. More intelligent and evolved people are moving into leadership...those that recognize that our society and laws must evolve over time.

You libs are so full of self love and your own supposid superiority.

When all you really are is sheep.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Gov't is not free, it entails a cost. For gov't to invoke a privilege upon anything, ANYTHING, therefore comes at a cost. To assert that invoking any privilege is not a force seems to me as error on the part of the asserting party because said cost requires some manner of force to assure not just payment but then some level of recognition of the privilege authorized and backed by the State.

Also seems to me a basic fundamental operation of economics as the action on the part of one to the benefit of another will require some exchange at the very least for the labor based on time exerted of those who work on behalf of the State. Even a written gov't decree of a purely ceremonial nature invokes a cost upon all taxpayers and said taxes at the end of the day are collected by a means of force standing behind the compulsory commands. At the end of the day, Indiana lawmakers who passed the legislation in question imposed a cost upon everyone in that at the very least their wages for time spent on said bill is a burden on all taxpayers in the manner of an economic force. Any privileged on behalf of some is always paid by all. Even when the privilege is a harm.

Seems to me this issue is as fundamental as understanding the concept of Positive and Negative Rights. I'm a strong advocate of negative rights while seems to me Indiana engaged in creating Positive Rights. I agree under the negative rights of free association and the right to contract, ANY BUSINESS OWNER has the right to choose with whom they want to do business BUT at the same time this also requires the State to eliminate all market hurdles and walls where for example if the pizza place said "no gay customers", said gay customer could go home, make pizzas out of the kitchen and enter the marketplace in direct competition or even open a business right next door. Zoning laws are the first market barrier to such outcome and therefore the pizza place enjoys a market privilege that protects them from truly open market competition.

As a radical market anarchist, I would crush such market barriers in the first place and then let people discriminate against potential customers all they want as this would now be economic folly IMO.

Until we see government troops, police officers, enforcers, etc forcing people to practice a certain religion there there will never be a valid argument for separation of church and state. And let's not forget the FACT that separation of church and state is not in The Constitution. That is why to argue otherwise at a legislative level is the true burden and cost to the taxpayer.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Nothing you say goes over my head, genius.

OK, so in your opinion Scalia-types who are strict interpreters of the Constitution are the only way? He actually tries to place himself back in 1776 and look at the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers did, which doesn't really work because a lot has changed in almost 250 years. Like it or not, society evolves over time, and the Founding Fathers couldn't have possibly imagined some of those changes. One of the great things about our laws is that they were designed to evolve as well.

You can freely practice your religion, as long as that practice does not infringe on the equal rights of others. Scalia and other judges like him probably see it your way, but most people disagree with the concept of "time-travel" back to 1776 in an attempt to see things through the eyes of the framers of the Constitution.

You're a dinosaur, and your time on Earth is about over. More intelligent and evolved people are moving into leadership...those that recognize that our society and laws must evolve over time.

Take your hate elsewhere Skippy. Try the phone or Twitter. And call Fed Smith and threaten him while you are at it.

 

[MrFedEx]

Take your hate elsewhere Skippy. Try the phone or Twitter. And call Fed Smith and threaten him while you are at it.

You're not intelligent enough to have a debate. Sorry you hate gays and our progressive societal values. It's true...you hate America too. Go read your Bible and direct us all what to do with the "homos". You and the late Fred Phelps have a lot in common.

 

[MrFedEx]

You libs are so full of self love and your own supposid superiority.

When all you really are is sheep.

Yep, we are the lambs of God, and we also know how to spell. It's "supposed". You, on the other hand are a dinosaur like you pal OPUT, and you spew the same hate speech that froths from the mouths of your leaders...Rush, Glenn, and Sean. Haters all, and ant-American to the core. People like them (and you and your buddy) give both Christianity and Conservatism a bad reputation.

It's no wonder most Americans are moving away from both concepts.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

You're not intelligent enough to have a debate. Sorry you hate gays and our progressive societal values. It's true...you hate America too. Go read your Bible and direct us all what to do with the "homos". You and the late Fred Phelps have a lot in common.

Yep, we are the lambs of God, and we also know how to spell. It's "supposed". You, on the other hand are a dinosaur like you pal OPUT, and you spew the same hate speech that froths from the mouths of your leaders...Rush, Glenn, and Sean. Haters all, and ant-American to the core. People like them (and you and your buddy) give both Christianity and Conservatism a bad reputation.

It's no wonder most Americans are moving away from both concepts.

Take your ball and go home little boy. I believe your mum and pa are hollering for you to get home and into the tub before your bubble bath subsides.

 

[MrFedEx]

Take your ball and go home little boy. I believe your mum and pa are hollering for you to get home and into the tub before your bubble bath subsides.

You've got nothing...as usual. Your 2 dads or (is it 2 moms?) say it's time to come home and have your Big Gay Easter Dinner. Afterwards, you can entertain them with your Liberace impressions.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

You've got nothing...as usual. Your 2 dads or (is it 2 moms?) say it's time to come home and have your Big Gay Easter Dinner. Afterwards, you can entertain them with your Liberace impressions.

What's the matter squirt? Did you forget to dial *67 before you called your local pizzeria to threaten to burn their business down if they didn't cater your wedding?

 

[The Other Side]

I am never amazed at the lengths that the resident bigots of this board will go to defend an action that has already been walked backwards.

While Kentucky and Indiana "walk back" the language in their religious protection laws, you all still jump in feet first to defend bigotry and hatred.

If it wasnt for "protected classes of people" , the right wing would still prevent blacks from entering public schools, colleges , restaurants and drinking out of the same fountains.

While this may be superNwords dream world, that world came to an end in this country.

There are plenty of trailer parks where white is right, and white rules. There are plenty of trailer park preachers to fill your days with hate speech straight out of the christian bible. As the founders ALL said, the bible was full of crap and only the weak were captivated by it.

thanks for proving them right.

In your worlds, discrimination is a right, not a crime.

I wonder how you would feel if all christians were banned from all non christian businesses?

TOS.

 

[baklava]

Don't businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? Why should it matter what the reason is. Who would want to force somebody to bake a cake for them against their will anyway, they'd probably spit in it.

I doubt this is really about religion though, it's about people finding homosexuals icky. You have the right to be an a-hole in this country, but you're still an a-hole. WWJD? Probably just bake them the damn cake and then pray forgiveness for their "sins"

 

[cosmo1]

^^Icky??

 

[MrFedEx]

What's the matter squirt? Did you forget to dial *67 before you called your local pizzeria to threaten to burn their business down if they didn't cater your wedding?

Here are some words from someone significant that you should consider. "With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times".

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Here are some words from someone significant that you should consider. "With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times".

Aww isn't that cute. You figured out how to google quotes!