Religious Freedom Act

santuzza · Apr 2, 2015

I think this is a good idea. Unfortunately, Indiana caved and now the law is virtually useless.

I am a Christian and a professional singer, and I will NOT sing at a gay wedding. I should not be persecuted because of this decision. It is my right to refuse to do that when there are a million other singers out there willing to take the gig. Same thing with caterers, bakers, photographers, etc.

santuzza · Apr 2, 2015

And let me add, if a gay couple wants me to sing at their cocktail party, NO PROBLEM! But I won't sing at a gay "wedding." Uh-uh. No way. Put me in jail first.

p_rehbein · Apr 2, 2015

santuzza said:

Actually, I thought they completely "caved" as well, but as I have now researched what was actually "reconciled" I am hopeful again.............The basics are this:

1) the Law passed can not be used to discriminate against an individual(s) for whatever reason.

2) the Law does offer a protected defense for people(s) to deny service when it conflicts with their Faith.

Examples:

1) The Pizzeria Owner CAN NOT refuse service to a gay person/couple who walk into their Pizzeria simply because they are gay...................

2) A gay couple enters the Pizzeria and states they want the Owner to Cater their Wedding..........the Owner has the right to refuse to do so based on their Faith/Beliefs.

IF this holds up, then it is pretty much what I believed the Constitution to support, and I would be fine with it.

psychomom · Apr 2, 2015

p_rehbein said:

it's a well kept 'secret' SCOTUS effectively gutted religious freedom in 1990.

waiting for the other shoe to drop.....

Viligant_Warrior · Apr 3, 2015

p_rehbein said:

This is all true, and yes, it is hopeful.

What I find disturbing is the fact upper management from Walmart, NASCAR, and other family-friendly and at least suspected Christian executives rushed to judgment on the bills without even really knowing what they said. Unfortunately, those are the people with the checkbooks who finance campaigns, so even committed Christian pols were unwilling to buck the gravy train.

More signs of the times, boys and girls, more signs of the times.

p_rehbein · Apr 3, 2015

Viligant_Warrior said:

The Wal-Mart crew (family owners) are all big liberals........have been for years.........NASCAR Management, the France family and others have always been big liberals........always....none of them are Christian to my knowledge, nor do they claim to be. They have always supported liberal social/political policies/ideology. So I'm not one bit surprised that they had to sound off.

G4JC · Apr 3, 2015

DesiredHaven said:

I think this answers your question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

p_rehbein said:

Indeed, and they aren't the only ones. If you have the time, this site really puts it into perspective.
They have a phone app too:
https://www.2ndvote.com/about

PennEd · Apr 3, 2015

Everybody who is confused or on the side of the homosexuals should watch this succinct, truthful video:[video=youtube;RgWIhYAtan4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=294&v=RgWIhYAtan4[/video]

Viligant_Warrior · Apr 4, 2015

p_rehbein said:

Royals owner David Glass hired most of those execs when he was Walmart CEO. Glass himself is a very conservative Republican. I'd be surprised if those execs now at Walmart are liberal, but it wouldn't surprise me if they and Congressional type Republicans -- RINOs, in other words, bowing to the politically correct for the appearance rather than the principle.

As for the Frances, I'm not sure where you got that. They are one sports dynasty the liberals love to hate. Not saying they aren't liberal, because I don't know. But they sure do draw the ire of liberals for being liberal themselves, if they are.

Isn't there a secret handshake or "gang sign" they can flash to call off the dogs?

p_rehbein · Apr 4, 2015

Viligant_Warrior said:

I was speaking of the Wal-Mart owners.............Sam Walton's kids/. family..............

As for NASCAR...........anyone who follows NSACAR has seen numerous examples of their Politically Correct actions on various subjects at various times. Liberals don't hate NASCAR (France and establishment), they hate the NASCAR FANS. Big difference between the fans and the Management/Ownership.

DesiredHaven · Apr 4, 2015

PennEd said:

Yeah, thats what I was asking about, muslims are far more unyeilding on this issue.

Afterall homosexuality is both a sin and a crime punishable by death in the countries they come from.

Thats why I was like, why on earth dont they do stories that show what happens between those pushing their same sex justifcation on muslim restaurants?

But I think they just target christians because they know christians dont have a history of executing them in horrific ways as the other group might ("certain" of which could easily be perceived as loose cannon's to that kind of pressure) even here in the U.S. Not to mention the whole community of them get enraged and take upon themselves extreme measures if pushed too far against their own convictions.

Thats some shaky ground right there.

At least the other Islamic countries can get an eye full of what will happen among their own countries once they stop killing them and this type of agenda gets passed. Which probably serves as another good reason (with them) to resist ever making the same acceptable (even there). Although I certainly dont advocate killing homosexuals (as they do) I do disagree with any of that but they could see what softer measures might eventually lead to (which includes seeking to force them against their own convictions) in such dumb things as writing stuff on cakes like, Joe just love Fabio (same sex partners forever) with two grooms on top or some other such thing. Thats just weird.

I mean who writes on their wedding cakes "opposite sex marraige for ever"?

I do not agree with (or want my hand expressing some kind of approval in anyway) with either adults having sex with children, animals or either sex with the same sex. I regard them all as perversions. So why ask someone like me to make a cake for you (where I must write some "hooRAH" for a sin I dont agree with) and upon the very same? Who would want someone whose conscience condemns agreement with your sin to make your cake? Unless going against both nature (in respects to themselves) and against other peoples consciences (who regard it as such) is the way of these people?

Why dont they open their own bakerys and simply support those who arent morally opposed to their choices and who support their own lust of one another?

What if an Islamist wanted a cake by their own hands which clearly celebrated the imprisonment or death of two homosexuals? (and demanding the same in a deliberate "in your face" fashion from a known homsexual approving bakery)?

Oh, indeed there would be a problem because that is just plain wrong (and I think christian's would likely agree on the side of those they do not agree with in this thing).

Doing that is just as vindictive as doing what they themselves do.

This really bugs me though. Thanks for the video, I was very curious about this (what muslims would do) and that particular man seemed pretty passive, quitely resisting performing that task. There are others of the same which are not so quiet or passive when it comes to being forced against their beliefs (or conscience) in this matter.

Grandpa · Apr 5, 2015

JFSurvivor said:

That's the whole reason for religious freedom. You don't have to use it if you don't need it but its there if you do.

A christian who owns a business shouldn't be forced to do something that is against their morals, or religion. In that way I don't see how selling a cookie to a gay couple would be viewed as morally wrong by anyone. But a Christian Pastor may have quite a big problem marrying two men or two women and giving it Gods Blessing.

p_rehbein · Apr 5, 2015

Selling a cookie/pizza to a customer IS NOT THE SAME as "catering a wedding" that is against God's Word, and a Christians beliefs..........they ARE NOT the same. This is where we must take our stand in my opinion, and I believe some Lawmakers are trying to do this.............

Viligant_Warrior · Apr 6, 2015

p_rehbein said:

Then perhaps you would be interested in this HuffPo article: Walmart PAC, Walton Family Political Contributions Favor Conservatives: Report That was mid-2013. Their contributions in the 2014 congressional elections were 85% for conservatives.

p_rehbein said:

Nonetheless, Brian France is mostly a conservative, though like all big contributors, he's sent money to Democrats, too.

Now I know that hosting a fundraiser doesn't, in the eyes of most Tea Partyers, make France a conservative. But that's what he and the rest of the France family are.

ANovice · Apr 6, 2015

jsr1221 said:

The Bill was not about refusing service to homosexuals, it was about refusing to serve those that request products or services supporting homosexual marriages, which is contrary to Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and not between those of the same gender.

lumberjack · Apr 7, 2015

JFSurvivor said:

I think bakers are doing gays a favour by refusing to sell them cookies etc.
Even more than straights we do have to watch our weight, don't we?

AgeofKnowledge · Apr 7, 2015

It's all ready in the Constitution. If certainly radically leftist members of the U.S. judiciary began hadn't begun nullifying the religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution and helping immoral people to use government force to persecute moral people by seeking to imprison and bankrupt them for not facilitating immoral events and activities when the immoral ordered the moral to do so; we wouldn't even be at a point where state's were passing "religious freedom act"s to try and stop it.

We need better judges, people who are not willing to destroy the lives of everyday moral Americans for refusing to facilitate and participate in immoral activities and events. Period.

In the meanwhile, I suppose we also need legislation to protect what's already protected in our Constitution!

My thought is YES, every state should pass this legislation as well as put pressure on the federal executive and legislative branches to impeach certain judges who have and are misusing their office to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America and persecute the moral on behalf of the immoral.

The wording though should be carefully thought out. Obviously, no business should refuse service based on identity but rather refuse service that would facilitate immorality if they have religious convictions against doing that or, for the non-religious, simply believe it violates their moral conscience (in cases where it adheres to the historical normative morality articulated and expressed in Christianized Western Civilization) which is a human right under natural law.

jsr1221 said:

crossnote · Apr 8, 2015

Billyd said:

Is that like the Christian photographer buckling to their demand but in a heroic last ditch act of defiance take blurry pictures?

crossnote · Apr 8, 2015

Nautilus said:

Typical caricature spun by the left.
No, in both cases the christian/atheist baker is right. It has to do with individual conscience.

AgeofKnowledge · Apr 8, 2015

The problem, of course, is that the Walmart heirs are the cheapest billionaires on the planet.

Americans' average net worth is about $650,000 per household (the median is only about $70,000), and the average annual charitable donation is about $3,000 per household. Meanwhile, the average Walton has a net worth of $36 billion and gives about $730,000 to charity each year. This means that the four richest Waltons have, on average, a net worth that's 55,000 times higher than that of the average American household, yet give, as a percent of that wealth, about 1/230th as much to charity in a typical year.

Not to mention they are among the lowest paying employers in the U.S. to the extent most of their employers qualify for social services aid of some kind because they're so low paid. Then Walmart has the audacity to tell their employees to donate food to each other because they're so low paid some of them are going without food.

Then there's this problem: Walmart was the largest importer of goods to the United States in 2013,[SUP][4][/SUP] contributing significantly to the U.S. national trade deficit.

I could keep going but Americans use their freewill to flood in and buy from them every single day all over the nation. So why complain afterwards about a problem you create and maintain?

Maybe the stupid gene will run its course and the light bulb will go on and Americans will do something different and get better results. I won't hold my breath though. In the meanwhile, the Walmart heirs get richer and richer and hoard their wealth like the mythical dragons in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

Viligant_Warrior said:

Religious Freedom Act

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

psychomom

Guest

Viligant_Warrior

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Viligant_Warrior

Guest

Senior Member

DesiredHaven

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Viligant_Warrior

Guest

ANovice

Guest

lumberjack

Guest

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

AgeofKnowledge

Guest