Arkansas lawmakers pass religious-belief bill

stu said:


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 are saying it does.
More...


Oh, on one side is just people with " a religious angle" and on the other side are the legal experts, eh? LOL

You are either very misinformed, spinning, or just outright lying. All of the "legal experts" are not on your side. It only seems like they are to the homo crowd.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/
 
Breaking News: Arkansas Governor Seeks Changes to Religious Freedom Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/arkansas-indiana-religious-freedom-hutchinson-pence.html

Facing a backlash from businesses and gay rights advocates, Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas on Wednesday called on state lawmakers to either recall or amend legislation billed as a religious freedom measure so that it mirrored a federal law approved in 1993.

Mr. Hutchinson, a Republican, said he understood the divide in Arkansas and across the nation over the question of same-sex marriage and its impact on people’s religious beliefs. His own son, Seth, he said, had asked him to veto the bill, which critics say could allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.

To ensure that the state is “a place of tolerance,” Mr. Hutchinson said, he was considering using an executive order that would seek to balance the “competing constitutional obligations” if the legislature declined to make changes to the bill.

“What is important from an Arkansas standpoint is one, we get the right balance,” he said, “and secondly, we make sure that we communicate we’re not going to be a state that fails to recognize the diversity of our workplace, our economy and our future.”

“This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “But these are not ordinary times.”

(More at above url)
 
Whether a business is able to stay in business or lose most of it's revenue after they refuse to participate in a homo wedding does not constitute whether the business was right or wrong. It only tells you whether it was a good business decision.

In the 50's in the deep south, if a business was the owner of a swimming pool and decided to stop discriminating and let blacks come on in and swim, I'm quite sure that they would have gone out of business. And it would have been for lack of revenues. White people would have taken their business elsewhere. Iow, stopping the discrimination of blacks back then would have been a bad business decision resulting in loss. It would not have proved that the business was right to previously discriminate.

So attempting to prove that a Christian bakery is wrong to decline homo weddings by saying they would go out of business is no different. It may be a bad business decision, seeing how the homo police have most of the country scared to death of being called a homophobe. But it does not prove that what they are doing is wrong.
 
A bill that purports to give religious freedom that does not give religious freedom is a hoax.
And that's what Pence and Hutchinson are being cowed into doing by changing these laws.

I'll never understand why these republicans will throw their Christian backers under the bus in an effort to win over people who will never, ever vote for them in a million years. Even though i don't understand it, i do realize it, and it's just one of the reasons why the republican party is in my rear view mirror.
 
stu said:
...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 bill itself cannot eliminate a defense or counter action of discrimination, whether such discrimination was being considered as a religious right or whatever.

Even GW Bush didn't approve of law like this one so you can find reason to stop being the smart ass.
More...

Please point out the language in the 1993 federal act where the bill includes explicit language ensuring that those with strong religious views are not exempt from anti-discrimination law. And Where it specifically provides that the bill itself cannot eliminate a defense or counter action of discrimination, whether such discrimination was being considered as a religious right or whatever.

That's a strawman

The only difference between Indiana's Law and Federal Law is Indiana spelled it out. An individual or person's interest is extended to their business.
 
Last edited:
dbphoenix said:
Guess I was wrong.
More...

the-partner-thats-always-right1.jpg
 
Arkansas and Indiana Governors need to grow a spine. But I guess that's the whole purpose of the latest false narrative, to divide and scare the GOP.
 
fhl said:
A bill that purports to give religious freedom that does not give religious freedom is a hoax.
And that's what Pence and Hutchinson are being cowed into doing by changing these laws.

I'll never understand why these republicans will throw their Christian backers under the bus in an effort to win over people who will never, ever vote for them in a million years. Even though i don't understand it, i do realize it, and it's just one of the reasons why the republican party is in my rear view mirror.
More...


Me too. I just saw that mealy mouth coward Hutchinson on Tv, with his shit-eating grin saying that his son asked him to veto the law. If he threw a state contract to his son, he would go to jail, but apparently letting his son decide which laws to veto is ok.

I am so sick of these badass republicans who talk big, but if they have a homo child, suddenly all their principles go out the window. That's the thing about principles, they're easy to stand by when there is no cost involved. If they're truly your principles, you stand by them even if the cost is high. Otherwise, you are a sell out.

If a pol has a homo family member and can't bear the thought of offending them, then I am perfectly ok with them resigning. Somehow the nation will scrape by without Dick Cheney. Let someone who will honor their campaign promises take the seat. Don't run on your supposed principles then change them the minute your kid starts whining. We voted for you, not your kid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top