Search results

That is not the topic on which the dimwit who started this thread framed the whole thing or to which responses were made. That same dimwit is comparing crusades. A completely separate issue to the ridiculous proposal the thread topic makes. Besides that, you won't get any argument from me that...

Well, that's Religion for you.

66666666666666666666666666666666666 your problem, right there:D ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

All these conflicts encompass the era of the Roman Empire. Conflicts were started in North African regions, Egypt and Middle East territories against Arabs, Jews ,Greeks and others by the Roman Empire 100 years before any Christianity was invented, right through to 1200 CE when it can be...

That's religion for you.

From Genghis Khan to Pope Urban ll, now "jem the obscure":D ..we didn't start it..".:rolleyes:

You use a waffle iron your mother was given to talk to your wife? Damn, as well as lasting a long time, those appliances were sure way ahead of their time.

Christianity v Islam Two bald men fighting for a comb.

There is also a "Unicorn Hypothesis". It also hasn't much if anything to do with science.

So to sum up. Those not vaccinating: irresponsibly dangerous Those not combination vaccinating: much less dangerous, but taking more risk than need be. Both similar in as far as conspiracies and anti-science mistrust go.

Those facts are facts . They aren't my facts. There is this thing called the Internet. You can easily corroborate everything I said. You'd think if you were genuinely that interested in the well being of your own child you would have done so. Scientifically (you know, that thing you are...

Sure that's pretty much all you need to read. Just enough of anything to keep your ridiculous ignorance in tact. Formaldehyde is produced naturally in the body in far greater amounts than any vaccine introduces. There is already over 10 times more formaldehyde occurring naturally in a 2month...

As I say, you really haven't thought it through. A caterer who isn't selling bacon to anyone, is not a caterer who isn't selling bacon to everyone. Selling bacon, then not selling it because you are discriminating against people, is for good reason, against the law. It is absolutely the issue...

So all you are saying is, so long as your principle or will is a religious one, however plain wrong that principle may be, it is always compulsion when a court orders against it. Really?! Are you sure you've thought that through?

Obviously you're not aware what formaldehyde is used for, otherwise you wouldn't say that. It makes you ignorant of the science, that's all. But you vaccinated your sprog with "settled science" and "fact". :D The science here that isn't settled, is all the science you've decided to keep...

Fair enough. That's where you were mistaken then.

...especially if a law is introduced which allows the existence of itself to be defence against a suit for discrimination . The bill includes no explicit language ensuring that those with strong religious views are not exempt from anti-discrimination law. It has to specifically provide that the...

We were talking about Federal Law and Indiana law. Wallet's link which I've just replied to, shows in the quote I gave irrespective of parsing, that those two are fundamentally different and it's pretty clear how and why.

"In broad strokes, the Indiana and Illinois laws are similar. But there are a couple of important differences," Differences are differences. That's what you asked for. Those supporting a religious angle will say those differences will not amount to anything. If you look around, legal experts...

Horseshit response. Section 7 is a fundamental difference in provision to Federal law. The difference which you asked for. And it has profound consequences with regard to intent of the bill.