Posted on 03/30/2015 9:49:34 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Indiana's Republican legislative leaders said Monday they're working on adding language to a new state law to make it clear that it doesn't allow discrimination against gays and lesbians....
Supporters of the law insist the law will keep the government from compelling people to provide services they find objectionable on religious grounds. Arkansas is poised to follow in Indiana's footsteps, as Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson has said he'll sign a measure moving through the state's Legislature.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In KY we were going to put up a barn specifically for weddings. But we’re trying to figure out how to prevent homosexual unions from using our venue. So far all we’ve come up with is putting scriptural quotes on the wall that are not allowed to be covered during events. Stuff that refers to a man and woman, etc.
In a sane world, it would not be much of a problem, partly because there are not that many of them. But I think they seek out places that don’t want to do it to make their case.
This does NOTHING that was not already allowable for Indiana citizens to do. There is no state “non-discrimination” policy including sexual reprobates, nor is there one federally.
Clarification isn’t going to work anyway. The opposition is outright lying and won’t accept anything less than unconditional surrender.
Ask uninformed people who get their “news” from television shows what percentage of the people are gay and they’ll tell you “Twenty-five per cent”.
I say we need to form a country that practices freedom of religion. We used to have one but not anymore.
The fact that a whole new protected class is being conjured up by the fringe and the media drives me absolutely insane. Our forefathers would be mortified by what we've become.
We are easy prey. If I did not hold to Christian values and some homosexual couple tried this crap with me, something very bad would happen to them or their property.
But I do so it won’t. It’s a turn the other cheek thing.
We’re getting very close to the mark of the beast, in spirit if not literally.
Our pastor no longer signs marriage certificates but presides over religeous weddings only.
Don’t get a state license. Have the couple get married by civil non ceremony then married before God at your chapel barn.
[[But were trying to figure out how to prevent homosexual unions from using our venue.]]
Just do what westborrow does and put up a huge sign o nyour building “God hates fags” because apparently that kind of hate speech is protected according to courts who have upheld westborrow’s ‘right’ to say such crap- and whenever gay people demand to be wedded in hyour barn, sub out the ceremony to westborrow preacher- for all other weddings, have a REAL preacher do the ceremony
In other words, they are revoking it.
It is okay for progressives to choose non-interaction and no commerce. Seattle and San Francisco are boycotting Indiana. I am sure that there are faggots from across the country that say they won't do anything with Indiana. That's their right - and people from Indiana should be pleased. This blatant hypocrisy needs to be exposed and the argument turned to basic constitutional rights for all; not just the rights for faggot-loving progressives who choose not to associate with normal God fearing people unless they want a wedding cake and a lawsuit.
Christians will not be able to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Mooselimbs WILL be able to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Can't get any clearer than that.
You still need to have a marriage registered with the state, because that makes sure you and your spouse are entitled to all the rights that come from many different laws that have been in place for married people, long before any of this current stuff of today came around. Not doing that will make it so that you don’t get any of those legal benefits that the many laws have allowed in the past.
One for example (just for one, as there are hundreds) is that death benefits from Social Security won’t carry over to the spouse, without a marriage being seen as legal by the state. All that does, by you not getting your marriage recognized legally, is that you take money away from your spouse. Who wants to do that with their spouse?
The whole point of the opposition is to oppress Christians.
As you said they will stop at nothing short of criminalizing Christians.
Supporters of the law insist the law will keep the government from compelling people to provide services they find objectionable on religious grounds.
But the perverts and their boosters call it "discrimination" for real Christians to refuse to provide wedding-related services to perverts because they find it objectionable on religious grounds.
So which is it going to be?
But no clergyman needs to be involved with that.
Well, that’s true ... a clergyman doesn’t have to be involved as long as you get it legally registered. Do whatever you want with a clergyman ... :-) ...
The discrimination is against Christians by forcing them to participate in something that is revolting to them.
What’s next, coerced Sodomy?
Actually, you have a valid point. I could put up a sign that says “God Hates Homosexual activity” that would only show up when homosexual couples are checking out the facility.
Or something like that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.