This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Think of all the food and shelter that could be provided for the homeless with that kind of cash. Or the health care that could be provided to those who otherwise can't afford it.
Yeah I know it's technically a step back in terms of equality and i'm not entirely serious but still, if the law went through you just know that every bible thumping pizzeria owner wouldn't be able to resist plastering the windows of their business with "We dont serve gays" signs making it much easier to avoid the #######s.
From my perspective it would be great, but I'm just a hetero who dislikes bigots. I imagine the actual target of the discrimination would feel a bit different.
I'm certain that being a good Christian, the majority of that money will go to a humanitarian cause.
Without a doubt. There's probably a fair amount of incredulity they have to get past first. "HOW much did people give us? You're ####ting me."
Of course it is. Consider the source. I'm amazed that people continue to read and respond to this guy. If there was ever a better time to utilize the ignore feature, I haven't seen it.
I'm sure it will too. Like rebuilding their business after it was destroyed by a bunch of PC and we-talk-about-tolerance-but-were-not-so-tolerant-after-all jackasses.
I believe it was meant to prevent state and local governments from targeting individuals for lawsuits based on actions they took practicing their religion.
I appreciate your discretion, but I've decided I'm just going to move forward with my plans for **** Pizza.
You should name your pizza sizes the extra large ****, the large ****, the average ****, etc. You would make a killing. Nobody would come in and order anything smaller than the large.
Yeah, I kind of knew the "man on the street" take was satire in some form. Didn't know the Onion did it, but it doesn't surprise me.
I think the intent is to take it even further -- to prevent unintended discriminatory results from non-discrimatory laws. Seems like I remember a case involving a church that wanted to expand but couldn't because their building was on a historical registry. A balancing test was explicitly adopted to test outcomes in specific cases if I'm remembering right. Regardless the regulated conduct was government conduct, not private conduct.
Kind of ironic that a group of people intending to put them out of business was a catalyst to such a windfall.
Maybe, but that isn't how you come across. The perception is that you are a mean-spirited homophobe and a bigot, which you keep reinforcing with your posts.
Didn't you just accept a position with a predatory lender? If Jesus was here he'd knock over your table.
i don't have a clear understanding of this issue, i haven't read up on the fine points or put much energy into research. having said that, i read today that the RF statutes are meant to give businesses that choose to withhold service based on religious objections a legal argument. The issue being generally applicable non-discrimination laws compel businesses to go against their religious objections with no legal recourse.
The internet taketh away. The internet giveth.
I've devoted my thread to it. You're welcome to come in at anytime. Lots of articles, facts have been posted and linked.tommyboy said:
Anna Camp = top 5Scoresman said:
Tim please stick to your rules. I've been seeing more and more of your posts outside of your thread lately. I jump in your thread often, not to read your posts but others. Don't ruin these boards... Again.
Phelps was crazy and weird. Calling him anti-gay is true, but he's a once-in-a-lifetime kind of crazy. I wouldn't call him an RFRA supporter in any reasonable sense. He was bat####. Also, Phelps was a lefty who gave heavily to the Dem party from what I hear.CBusAlex said:
I think there are two people on this board that schooled me on the difference between a common carrier and public accommodation. I thought the history was the same as Santorum in his ferry example. I personally made the same mistake Santorum is making, and the mistake is that which you are lauding. It's actually an incorrect lumping of two entirely separate doctrines of law under the same rubric, if I'm not mistaken.timschochet said:
Wow...that was actually pretty thought-provoking.timschochet said:
Common carriers, or those that generally transport goods and services, are a derivation of English common law (judge-made law) and these carriers were held to a very high discrimination and tort standard historically. They were not allowed to discriminate for a long, long time.
Leftist to me has nasty connotations. I pefer PROGRESSIVESteve Tasker said:
What Indiana did wasn't this at all. The federal statute restricts the government from enacting laws from having a negative impact on any religion, intended or not. When the SC said that it couldn't be applied to states, many states adopted the same legislation.tommyboy said:
They must have served some ####ty pizza for Internet backlash to have ruined them. In my experience the owner of a quality pizza joint could murder someone and still do good business. A little Internet backlash would just qualify as free PR.
