TBD on Ning
Eating Crow ....
Nine states have proposed bills that would allow Christian businesses the right to refuse service to LGBT customers
The spin was these laws are / were not meant to discriminate. Now Conservatives blame the "Social Conservatives". A.K.A. The Religious Right, The Moral Majority.
1. Is this a civil war in Republican Ranks?
2. Who are the "Tea Party".
3. If this is not discrimination, what is?
Views: 51
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ProblemAgain on
-
what trumped it is MONEY....the sudden realization that they could lose the superbowl venue and the new apple production facility etc.remember that the ted nugent/greg abbott farce proves that some things are more important than their family values...namely MONEY...("i ain't offended cause you wanna poke my daughter. i'm offended cause you only offered me 20 bucks. hell for 50 you can git gramma, my wife AND her")
-
-
Permalink Reply by LoveLife&Laughter on
-
I haven't heard anyone in AZ say they changed their mind because the the new improved "Jim Crow type" law was "morally repugnant".
-
-
-
for some people, there is NO such thing as morally repugnant.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ioruach on
-
The proponents of this idiocy like to say they are upholding “freedom of religion.” Here I like to use the rule I would call the “nose test.” Simply put, your freedom ends where my nose begins. In this case, you might say the Collective Nose---the nose of all of us. Do they want to use their religion to pick and choose whoever they decide to dislike and refuse to serve them?
-
-
-
I keep hearing about, "The war on religion!" and, "The War on Christmas!"
Does anyone know of any laws in the works against religion Christianity?
I mean besides the White Power and 2nd Amendment Rights crowd (a.k.a. KKK) passing "Stand Your Ground" and "Voter Suppression" laws to mess with BLACK Christians ...
I am familiar with many attempts against Muslims, Jews, etc. But the Mormons, Catholics, etc., get picked on regularly by the "Real Americans" too. So who's picking on them?
-
-
Permalink Reply by exedir on
-
Of course it is discrimination, but then again, is it protected?
What we have here is a reset of values, and those against such a reset, as "old time" religion. Once the question became gay rights, the deal was over as to what Constitution construction of what is the issue of homosexuality and gender identity is concerned, and more that relates to values of religion and standards of behavior.
If rights trump responsibility and traditional values, then we can expect the courts will make it right, so to speak.
And yes, there are voices and demonstrations against all of this change, but they are a statistical minority of active people which make up the rank and file of the tea party movement. However, they will vote, those of tea party and those that hold similar views and opinions, and they will vote in the primaries and upcoming general election and win. And the result will be, continued obstruct if not delay of almost everything in our national assembly, Congress.
If there is going to any change, except to run to the barricades and wave the bloody shirt, the people will have to ask themselves, is this all Article 5 worthy?
-
-
-
Article V? What needs to be changed?
This reminds me of the latest debacle in AZ ...
The proponents of SB 1062 couldn't point to even one instance of gay or anyone else's "War on Religion".
However SB 1062 is just another example of Social Conservatism's (TParty?) war on gays, women, blacks, etc.
Theirs is a constant message of hate, hypocrisy, and ignorance. All the poor gays want to do is make love lol ....
-
-
-
Is it protected? No, at least not until the American Taliban a/k/a The Tea Party takes over and changes the Constitution to the King James Version ...
-
-
-
And when one looks at it seriously and objectively, there is very little difference between the Tea Party and the Taliban.
-
-
-
That's why someone came up with the nomer "American Taliban" to describe them LOL ...
-
© 2024 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
