Religious Freedom Bill in Indiana.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I don't know about "delicacy" but it's pretty good.

I was just trying to show Vlad a little disrespect.
I have seen pictures and it does look pretty good but it also needs a 1/4 - 1/2 tsp of Cayenne.



Carl

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Funny how the supporters of the law that are being skewered for their supposed intollerance are the recipients of all kids of hate, religious bigotry and harassment.

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2015/0...dings-comment/

“We’re very hurt and confused and we stood up for what we believe,” she told The Blaze. “The news just took it totally out of proportion. They lied about it. We said that we would serve anyone that walked in that door, even gays, but we would not condone a wedding. We would not cater that because it’s against our religious beliefs.”

Ah yes. The "tolerant" left who supposedly sticks up for "the little guy" shows their stripes once again.

Can someone tell me why someone has to subordinate their legitimately held religious beliefs in this manner is the "right thing to do"? People "vote with their wallets" all the time, for any number of reasons. Is there not another pizzeria in Indiana that can cater a wedding, such that these folks need to be subject to such hate and bigotry from the left?

The gratuitous public disrespect and insult the restaurant owners chose to offer gays had consequences. They're not high on my list of poor baby victims deserving sympathy.

We decided in the case of blacks that protecting innocent people from the offense of being denied service was the thing to do, even at the cost of offending bigots. The whole public accommodations things was supposed to be settled, but conservatives still don't like it. Bless 'em.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Can someone tell me why someone has to subordinate their legitimately held religious beliefs in this manner is the "right thing to do"?

Yes, a business that serves the public is publicly licensed and can only refuse on the grounds that the person is drunk or disorderly or otherwise disturbing other patrons of that business..

For example if the business is the sole drugstore in town and a woman comes in with a Rx for birth control pills she cannot be refused. Especially as such medication is frequently prescribed for other reasons than birth control.

If your 'religious principles' are such as to interfere with you running a business that serves the public then find another occupation.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Can someone tell me why someone has to subordinate their legitimately held religious beliefs in this manner is the "right thing to do"? People "vote with their wallets" all the time, for any number of reasons. Is there not another pizzeria in Indiana that can cater a wedding?

This is the exact same argument used to discriminate against African-Americans during the Jim Crow days. Well done, Mike.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I don't know about "delicacy" but it's pretty good.

Its been 44 years so remembered tastes are a bit foggy.. Hey I see the Supreme Court has given PM Harper a year to come up with an assisted suicide law. That ought to get his knickers in a real twist.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The gratuitous public disrespect and insult the restaurant ownesr chose to offer gays had consequences. They're not high on my list of poor baby victims deserving sympathy.

Ah. So harassment and threats to business and bodily harm is the appropriate consequence for anyone expressing a sincerely - held religious belief that you happen to disagree with. Apparently a number of folks agree with you.

I guess I now know why we need religious freedom laws.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

This is the exact same argument used to discriminate against African-Americans during the Jim Crow days. Well done, Mike.

So you're comparing Jim Crowe laws with sincerely - held religious beliefs? Bravo.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Yes, a business that serves the public is publicly licensed and can only refuse on the grounds that the person is drunk or disorderly or otherwise disturbing other patrons of that

Really? Could you please direct me to this Indiana statute that restricts business owners in this manner?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Ah. So harassment and threats to business and bodily harm is the appropriate consequence for anyone expressing a sincerely - held religious belief that you happen to disagree with. Apparently a number of folks agree with you.

I guess I now know why we need religious freedom laws.

I didn't say anything was OK. I just said they are low on the sympathy list. There are more deserving victims ahead of them.

The religious freedom law is to protect people from harassment? Where does it say that?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

So you're comparing Jim Crowe laws with sincerely - held religious beliefs? Bravo.

Segregation was defended as a sincerely-held religious belief.