Religious Freedom Bill in Indiana.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And, as both you and this Indiana law amply demonstrate, there's another way to look at "religious intolerance": the intolerance of the religious.

Really. Again, your definition of someone who is acting in accordance with their sincerely held religious views = intolerance. Interesting.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

That's not the point I was responding to, but I suppose you know that to.

Besides, its irrelevant. The central point is there's standard today that states that can pick and choose to sell my product to whomever I want. If I've got a doughnut shop, and a customer comes in and I believe he or she is behaving inappropriately - using inappropriate language, talking loudly or acting disruptively - I can ask them to leave. Its a subjective decision that I as a business owner have every right in the world to make.

You're talking about inappropriate attire and/or offensive behavior. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by whell

I guess you're still living in the slavery era I guess.

You really are out of arguments, aren't you?

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Facts are stubborn things, whell. You can yell "you're damned wrong" all day, but the evidence will not go away.

These are religious justifications of slavery, published in the slavery era:

I love how you can have a laser like focus on the ill-founded writings of a few, yet ignore how the Christian churches and Christians played a huge role in the abolitionist movement. Do you to wear your religious bigotry and intolerance like a badge of honor?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

You really are out of arguments, aren't you?

See my post 113. Your religious intolerance is as unwelcome as a fart in an elevator.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Really. Again, your definition of someone who is acting in accordance with their sincerely held religious views = intolerance. Interesting.

In the case under discussion, absolutely.

"Acting in accordance with (your) religious views" with respect to the maltreatment of others is not protected. We can't burn heretics any more.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

You're talking about inappropriate attire and/or offensive behavior. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

I was responding specifically to a post by Merrylander, going back to post 53. Please try to keep up.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

In the case under discussion, absolutely.

"Acting in accordance with (your) religious views" with respect to the maltreatment of others is not protected. We can't burn heretics any more.

So, who's being mistreated: an individual who is asked to take their business someplace else - which a business owner has the right to - or a business owner who is asked to subordinate their sincerely held religious views an act in a way that is against those views and against their conscience?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

That's not the point I was responding to, but I suppose you know that to.

Besides, its irrelevant. The central point is there's standard today that states that can pick and choose to sell my product to whomever I want. If I've got a doughnut shop, and a customer comes in and I believe he or she is behaving inappropriately - using inappropriate language, talking loudly or acting disruptively - I can ask them to leave. Its a subjective decision that I as a business owner have every right in the world to make.

Huh? WTF are you babbling on about now?

Being an LGBT is somehow the same as "behaving inappropriately - using inappropriate language, talking loudly or acting disruptively"?

What frickin' planet are you living on?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

See my post 113. Your religious intolerance is as unwelcome as a fart in an elevator.

Saw it. The only person exhibiting intolerance and bigotry here is you.

Would you also call Pope Francis intolerant?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

So, who's being mistreated: an individual who is asked to take their business someplace else - which a business owner has the right to - or a business owner who is asked to subordinate their sincerely held religious views an act in a way that is against those views and against their conscience?

Funny, the Indiana legislature seems to disagree with your specious argument. Must suck to be you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...m-law/?hpid=z5