Reply With Quote
One has to wonder if that is a serious attempt.
.....surprised boutons hasn't posted this.....or maybe he has...
Shoot the gays' initiative likely to be circulated
Sorry Wrong thread, did not mean to imply that Cruz is Gay...
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election...r-circulation/A Southern California attorney’s “shoot the gays” initiative is not destined to become law — for one thing, it’s clearly uncons utional. But Attorney General Kamala Harris is scheduled to clear it for circulation in May, and she may not have any choice.
Matt McLaughlin, a lawyer from Huntington Beach in Orange County, paid his $200 filing fee Feb. 26 to submit the “Sodomite Suppression Act” to the voters. Declaring it is “better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath,” it would require that anyone who touches a person of the same gender for sexual gratification be put to death by “bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”
The measure would also make it a crime, punishable by 10 years in prison and permanent expulsion from the state, to advocate gay rights to an audience that includes minors. It specifies that its cons utionality can be judged only by a state Supreme Court that has been purged of LGBT justices and their advocates. And it authorizes private citizens to step in as executioners if the state fails to act within a year. Another provision would require that the text of the initiative be posted prominently in every public school classroom.
... Once the sponsor has paid the required fee, state law directs the attorney general to prepare a le and a maximum 100-word summary of the initiative and forward it to the secretary of state for a 90-day period of public signature-gathering. The secretary of state’s website says Harris is scheduled to take those actions by about May 4. Does she have the power to refuse if the measure is patently uncons utional? Harris isn’t saying; her office did not return repeated phone calls. But some veteran prac ioners of election law said they don’t think so.
Yep....homegrown sharia law is okay..carry a cross, wrapped in the flag, armed to the teeth,,,,in the name of "God".....
One has to wonder if that is a serious attempt.
Hmm, mostly making the rounds on the liberal blogosphere, but seems real enough.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...g-gays-n327196
The ass hat in question is a California legislator.
Indiana Gov. Pence Signs Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Bill Into Law
Source: TPM
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/penc...s-freedom-billIndiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) did it. On Thursday, he signed a controversial religious freedom bill into law that protects business owners from being required to serve same-sex couples if they have religious objections.
Pence said signing the bill into law makes sure that "religious liberty" is completely protected in the state.
"The Cons ution of the United States and the Indiana Cons ution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement.
A number of businesses strongly voiced opposition to the law. The large tabletop gaming convention Gen Con threatened to leave the state if Pence the bill, but is locked into a contract until 2020. Star Trek actor George Takei also warned that the law could result in a damaging boycott of the state.
-snip-
Pence this morning:
"I'm going to keep making it clear that I don't really understand the express scope of the law that I signed, but because you idiots out there have been hoodwinked into believing that it says precisely what it says and not what I say it says, I'm going to go ahead and have the law changed to take out the part that actually allows discrimination -- particularly against sexuals -- even though I keep telling you that I'm completely against discrimination because I walked across a bridge in Selma one time."
...
...
Pence: Freedom of Religion Ends if We Can’t Discriminate Against Gays
It is legal in Indiana to discriminate against LGBT. Employers can fire LGBT workers on the “grounds” that they are LGBT with impunity. Indiana Governor Mike Pence has long made clear his desire to ensure that no laws restrict the ability to discriminate against gays. Indeed, in Penceland the “right” to discriminate against gays is a fundamental aspect of First Amendment “free expression” rights.
The problem here is that by extending the reach of federal law to cover sexual orientation, employment discrimination protections, in effect, can wage war on the free exercise of religion in the workplace.
Pence claims that the fact that so many Americans oppose discrimination against gays proves that they – not the people that discriminate against gays – are the intolerant.
Pence addressed the critics Sunday, saying: “This avalanche of intolerance that’s been poured on our state is just outrageous.” Asked if he would be willing to add sexual orientation to the list of characteristics against which discrimination is illegal, he said, “I will not push for that. That’s not on my agenda, and that’s not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana.”
Pence has emphasized in the last several days that he does not intend to provide any legal protections to LGBT against any form of discrimination.
Why Governor Pence Won’t Answer Questions About the Act Allowing Discrimination
Pence had a disastrous appearance on ABC in which he refused to answer the most basic question about the Act – six times – would it allow a merchant to refuse services to LGBT. He did not answer the questions because he knew that if he did so he would have to admit that the Act was designed to allow merchants to discriminate against LGBT – and he knew that this was no longer acceptable among the majority of Americans and causes most young conservatives to roll their eyes about their parents’ obsession with gay bashing.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/...+capitalism%29
Religious Protection Laws, Once Called Shields, Are Now Seen as Cudgels
When the federal government adopted a religious protection act in 1993, same-sex marriage was not on the horizon.
An informal coalition of liberals and conservatives endorsed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it seemed to protect members of vulnerable religious minorities from punishment for the exercise of their beliefs. The federal legislation was set off by a case in which two followers of the Native American church were fired and denied unemployment benefits because they took part in ceremonies with peyote, an illegal drug.
Twenty states, including Indiana last week, have since passed their own versions of religious freedom laws.
But over time, court decisions and conservative legal initiatives started to change the meaning of those laws, according to liberal activists. The state laws were not used to protect minorities, these critics say, but to allow some religious groups to undermine the rights of women, gays and lesbians or other groups.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/31...gels.html?_r=0
Schumer: Stop Comparing Indiana's Religious Freedom Law To Mine
Schumer's full Facebook post is below:
In the uproar over the recently passed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), defenders of the bill like Indiana Gov. Pence are trying to hide behind the argument that the law "simply mirrors" the federal RFRA Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote and I introduced as a Congressman in 1993. That may be true only if you're using a Funhouse mirror. In reality, it is completely false, and a disingenuous argument to boot; they should cease and desist immediately comparing the federal RFRA of 1993 to their present, misguided law.
There are two simple reasons the comparison does not hold water.
First, the federal RFRA was written narrowly to protect individuals’ religious freedom from government interference unless the government or state had a compelling interest. If ever there was a compelling state interest, it is to prevent discrimination. The federal law was not contemplated to, has never been, and could never be used to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, in the name of religious freedom or anything else.
Second, the federal RFRA was written to protect individuals’ interests from government interference, but the Indiana RFRA protects private companies and corporations. When a person or company enters the marketplace, they are doing so voluntarily, and the federal RFRA was never intended to apply to them as it would to private individuals.
Because of these significant, legal differences, the Indiana RFRA in no way resembles the intent or application of the federal RFRA. As the signer of the bill, Governor Pence should put a stop to it immediately.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
Indiana law is fast having ‘definite negative impact’ on tech
As it loses sponsors, organizers of Big Data event want lawmakers to make correction
Organizers of the upcoming Indy Big Data Conference are feeling the impact of the tech industry's anger over Indiana's new "religious freedom" law and want state lawmakers to correct the law -- quickly.
The Indy Big Data conference, set for May 7 and designed to focus on "mining big data for big profits," has been losing sponsors in flurry of activity.
"Over the past 48 hours we have had seven national sponsors back out of the Indy Big Data Conference 2015 as a direct result of the Religious Freedom Act," said Christine Van Marter, the CEO of Conference Ventures, in an email statement. "This law is having an immediate and definite negative impact on technology in the state of Indiana."
http://www.itworld.com/article/29040...day_2015-03-31
CT has also banned all state employees to travel to IND on state expenses.
GOP presidential candidates get behind Indiana's license-to-discriminate law
“I think Governor Pence has done the right thing,” said Mr. Bush, who is expected to run for president in 2016. “I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.” [...]“There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been castigated by the government,” Mr. Bush said. “This is really an important value for our country, in a diverse country,where you can be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow people of faith to exercise theirs.”
"Nobody is saying that it should be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or at a hotel because of their sexual orientation. I think that's a consensus view in America," Rubio said on Fox News Monday. "The flip side is, should a photographer be punished for refusing to do a wedding that their faith teaches them is not one that is valid in the eyes of God?"
Ted Cruz:
“Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State,” Mr. Cruz said. “Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties.”
Predictably, other potential candidates like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Sen. Rick Santorum, and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson were firmly on Team Okay-to-Discriminate.
And Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker continued to be vague yet far-right in his issues positions, sending a spokesperson out to say that "As a matter of principle, Gov. Walker believes in broad religious freedom and the right for Americans to exercise their religion and act on their conscience" without quite directly addressing the Indiana law.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374570/-GOP-presidential-candidates-get-behind-Indiana-s-license-to-discriminate-law?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_camp aign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29#
Repugs, the Party of Stupid, the Party of Hate, pandering to the Bible humping Christian Taliban.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-31-2015 at 01:04 PM.
Sounds good, they shouldn't be corrupting the young
typical fatassed -for-brains Bible humpin Repug voter
Indiana Pizza Shop Vows Not to Serve Gay People, But Owner Insists 'We're Not Discriminating Against Anyone'
“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza. [...]“We're not discriminating against anyone, that's just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” says O'Connor.
“I do not think it's targeting gays. I don't think it's discrimination,” says O'Connor. “It's supposed to help people that have a religious belief.”Says the person who just announced her intent to discriminate against LGBT people because the law allows her to do so. It's supposed to help people who have a religious belief? What's it supposed to help them do? Discriminate—as you are so deftly showing.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-libert...ter1034187&t=7
“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be sexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” says Kevin O'Connor.
FOR BRAINS!
what gay couple would order pizzas for their wedding
Boutons you're heavily invested in this gay , got something to tell us?
Indiana rednecks? walmart people?
His fellow shills shoot loads in his mouth.
s are people too
Yeah, i guess the law of averages says there's a Cletus and Jethro telling guests to bring their own 'shine to the wedding.
Christ, Our Lord, God, and Savior, with NOT BE HAPPY
Indiana Bill Changes Would Prohibit Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000003
Don’t Wreck Religious Liberty’s Brand
We are all obsessed with our brands these days, and no one more so than states competing fiercely for jobs and businesses. Some of them are quickly learning that being seen as anti-gay is dangerous to their images.
As controversy engulfed Indiana over its religious liberty law that would give legal recourse to those who discriminate against gays and lesbians, leaders of North Carolina, which has one of the most conservative state governments in the country, were getting cold feet about passing a comparable statute.
“I think we need to show that if we approve this bill, that it will improve North Carolina’s brand,” said Tim Moore, the Republican Speaker of the state House of Representatives. “Anything we do, we have to make sure we don’t harm our brand.”
A new commandment now trumps some of the others: Thou shalt not spoil the brand.Republican governor Pat McCrory went further the day before on a Charlotte radio show, saying that a religious liberty law “makes no sense.” He asked: “What is the problem they’re trying to solve?”
This turn of events is coming as a shock to opponents of gay marriage. They thought that moving the fight to the ground of religious liberty was a politically shrewd fallback position now that courts are ratifying marriage equality. In our rights-oriented country, the best way to push back against one right is to assert a competing one.
Conservatives have a fair claim up to a point — and now they have barreled past it. The legitimate argument is that the country has rapidly changed its mind on gay marriage even as many religious traditions continue to see sexual behavior and same-sex marriage as sinful.
Most supporters of gay marriage are willing to acknowledge (and should) that the law cannot force religious denominations to participate in activities they regard as deeply wrong. Most marriage equality statutes have thus included broad exemptions. An objecting church, for example, cannot be forced to bless a same-sex union, nor can it be required to let its facilities be used to celebrate one. Those who want their faith communities to change their view of marriage have to work the matter out on the inside and not rely on the coercive power of the state.
But opponents of gay marriage wanted more. Going far beyond what the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act had in mind at the federal level, they want a baker to be able to refuse to confect a cake for the reception after the ceremonies and for a florist to decline to provide the bouquets.
Now, I truly doubt that there are a lot of gay couples who would give their wedding business to vendors who regard what they are doing as an abomination. As a Catholic, I might not be enthusiastic about having an anti-Catholic baker involved in my wedding festivities. Not every battle has to be fought, and I suspect that many same-sex couples will voluntarily turn to bakers and florists who can share in their joy and don’t have to be forced to come kicking and screaming to the party. Supporters of gay marriage are winning, so they should consider the virtue of graciousness toward those who still oppose it. This would be good for social peace. (excellent point: beat the intolerant, hating, lover of God with tolerance)
But consider my example: I do not think the law should give someone who sees the pope as the anti-Christ “religious liberty” grounds to use in justifying discrimination against me. Gays and lesbians are justified in feeling the same way. By taking reasonable religious liberty claims and then pushing and twisting them into a rationale for discrimination, opponents of gay marriage have picked a fight that will weaken religious liberty arguments overall.
Where would this end?
Carefully thought-through religious liberty exceptions make good sense. They involve balancing when it is appropriate to exempt religious people from laws of general application and when it doesn’t. But turning religious liberty into a sweeping slogan that can be invoked to resist any social changes that some group of Americans doesn’t like will create a backlash against all efforts at accommodating religion. Forgive me, but this is bad for the brand of religious liberty.
It is, however, entertaining to watch conservative politicians be jostled this way and that between their business cons uencies who don’t want this kind of trouble and their supporters among social conservatives who insist upon it. They thought they had found a way around the country’s increasing openness to gay rights. They’re fretting about brands because they now know they were wrong.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/dont-wre...-%202015-04-02
Branded Hate(c) ! Christ(c)!
why would gays want pizza served to them by someone that doesn't like gays? Will there be a follow up law that prohibits the gays from being smarmy to the pizza people when they are forced to deliver pizza to the gays?
it's all ing insane.
Religion s up societies. Where has religion solved any country's problems, advanced human society? (the religionists who landed at Plymouth Rock were already authoritarian, nasty, persecuting assholes)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
