Supafly
Retired Mod
It is a fact if you provide the text of these laws and they actually are the same as this new one.
Fact is: Fact is not saying something, fact is proving something.
Indiana Gov Signs Religious Freedom Law, Could Discriminate Against LGBT
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
It is a fact if you provide the text of these laws and they actually are the same as this new one.
Fact is: Fact is not saying something, fact is proving something.
For the second time, in the other RFRA's the law does not explicitly apply to disputes between private citizens. What makes the Indiana RFRA law different from the other 29 and the federal RFRA is that it's the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens. Beyond the differences between the Indiana law and other states, many of the other states that have a RFRA also have a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana does not have one
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-indiana-illinois-religious-objections-met-20150327-story.html
Once again, the federal RFRA and the IL RFRA are not the same as the IN RFRA. As I stated earlier, the IL RFRA specifically bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. The IN RFRA does not. Also once again, both the federal and IL RFRA do not apply to disputes between private citizens. The IN law is more "broadly written than its federal and state predecessors" and opens up “the path of least resistance among its species to have a court adjudicate it in a manner that could ultimately be used to discriminate
https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.co...storation-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/
The left would lose its shit if some business owner refuses service to someone (let say a jew for example) because it goes against his religious beliefs.
Whatever the religion involved if such a thing happen, I'm gonna lose my shit. Even if an atheist business owner refuses service to a christian.
But conservative are different. To them, a christian business owner can refuse service to a muslim, an atheist or a gay person, claiming it goes against their religious believes to serve such people. Conservatives will support these business owner, claiming they are just exercising their religious freedom.
But if a muslim or gay person does the same, conservatives will be outraged
Anyways, the truth is this kind of bills have been introduced by christians only, no muslim, no gay, no atheists have introduced, voted or sign such bills
This whole this is such a waste of time, focus, and energy. The law is useless and ill conceived. The outrage seems like a waste of time. I believe CT has a similar law on its books. Nice job in a a protest fail. I know some in Indiana were trying to ban gay marriage.
Just tired of the waste on this hate and bigotry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
Just tired of the waste on this hate and bigotry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
SabrinaDeep
Official Checked Star Member
You must spread some reputation...
SabrinaDeep
Official Checked Star Member
Please, send your wife or mother wearing a pair of jeans and at-shirt to pray in a mosque and let us know the outcome. Try the same with a gay friend, if you have any (allow me to doubt it). Muslims don't need bills. They have their book telling them to hate and kill Christians, gays, women and pigs and they usually follow it literally.
Supa, my policy is that Sabrina is incredible and always right. So, based on that, thppppttt!
I'm not a lawyer of any sort, but I've read the US Constitution a few times. Seems to me that this law would have no standing. It protects your right to worship. I know that ruling have a bit insane over the past few years, but it would seem that business is not part of worship. In speaking with a colleague is a bit more qualified, his statement was that business can really only refuse business to someone if:
The customer threatens to harm employees or other patrons
The customer’s presence may create an issue of safety or health hazards
The business has reached maximum capacity
The business is not open (i.e., not normal business hours)
So, the whole things seems symbolic and pointless. As always we take our beliefs with passion and make things as complicated as possible.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
You two have a bit of a perception problem. It's not uncommon, considering how hard the media is selling it. But I warned the board once about what the media sells on this topic...
Pardon me, Reza Aslan.
Actually it would be very disrespectfull towards the folks that came to the mosque to pray to send there a woman that is not msulim and that is dressed in a way that is not the way muslim woman should dress in public. Most of muslim women do not folow exactly these rules when they go outside but they do when they go to the mosque.
Just like not evry jewish males wear the kipa all the time but they all wear it when they enter the synagogue. And non-jewish males have to wear it as well to enter the synagogue.
What you're asking me to do is to hurt the feeling of muslim folks, on purpose, for no reason. It would be like spitting in the stoup when getting in a church. Would you do that ?
Stop talking about things you know nothing about. Talk cock-sucking, cam-shows, gang-bangs, etc. That's your field of expertise.
Anyways, funny how from a pro-discrimination bill we've slipped to one more islam-bashing discussion...
SabrinaDeep
Official Checked Star Member
You are thick! Very thick. And i mean very very thick. As thick as Rocco's dick. Excuse me the rhyme.
Supa, you are thick too, if you can't understand a comment inside a certain contest and related to another comment. My friends are various and variegated, by the way.
Rattrap, yes, that book promotes violence and many muslims follow or at least don't take any distance from what that book promotes; nothing to do with media. I've read it not once, but 8 times. I know what i'm talking about. I know that that book is stronger than any bill for muslims who dare to be considered as such; i was answering the French guy stating that "Anyways, the truth is this kind of bills have been introduced by christians only, no muslim". If you can't understand my answer and where it comes from, you are thick too.
Can you or can you not go as a woman, dressed in jeans and a top, inside a mosque to pray? Just fucking answer me, all you hypocrites. Is it something like the bill in question already existing within the muslim community? Yes or not? If not what are the differences? Are we already having daily discrimination towards gays, women etc from religious groups without that fucking disgraceful bill, yes or not?
No you can't. Just like men have to wear the kipa to get in a synagogue. Just like you will be asked to cover your legs if you wanna visit one of the Hindu temples in Bali or to deposit your shoes before entering in some other hindu temples.
But since you seem to be outraged that women can't go into a mosque wearing a t-shirt, why aren't you equally outraged that they can't go into some Hindu temples wearing a skirt ?
Asking people to respect some dress code when entering a religious building is very different from refusing to serve a customer just because you don't approve he lifestyle (which he did not choosed). Women are not being denied the right to go in a mosque or a temple. They are just required to dress properly.
That's not what the law is about.
Oh and, the gay wedding cake scenario played out at a muslim-owned bakery:
"the giant burka'd elephant in the room"
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Supafly
Retired Mod
Try to go into Notre Dame in Paris with a cap or hat on. And of course, you cannot go dressed casually into a mpsque.
I am talking everyday people in everyday surroundings. Churches, mosques, synagogues are the places where the laws are enforced, most time to extremer measures. The ordinary christian, jew or muslim lives by a much more easygoing rule.
sure, I am thick.
Similar threads
