He better get some muslim support, because Christian support won’t mean anything to the lying, screaming, evil attacking sodomites.
Cynical ploy.
Nice objective headline.
“Bigot” ... 1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. 2. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person.
No bias in that headline, lol
Not 100% sure I understand the Bill, but there needs to be great care here. I once taught a Sunday School class about prayer in school and everyone was 100% for it ... until I talked about the fact that it might not be a (insert religion here) prayer. Then they were 100% against it.
While not at ALL advocating ANYTHING resembling gay marriage, civil unions, etc etc etc you’ve gotta be very careful about permitting people to not serve, etc others just because they don’t like them. History is loaded with examples of that coming back to bite those people in the a**.
We shouldn’t need a law for this, since we have a RIGHT to refuse to do engage in any practice, business or otherwise, that violates our conscience.
Marraige is the age old social institution where a man and a woman form a union to procreate, have offspring, and raise the next generation. It is not about deviants having butt-sex, no matter how normal they tell us it is.
No one should be required to service nor support individuals that demand their service and support to the benefit of the individuals’ immoral behavior. It shouldn’t require the context of religion to justify the denial of service/support.
Local media isn’t calling it the Religious Freedom bill!
They report the usual drama queens but not the small business owners punished by the govt for envoking the 1st amendment
Great idea, and misleading title written by libs.
Its the ‘religious freedom’ bill.
I think the bill needs to be more broadly based in order to avoid charges of animus. Rather than focus on just same sex marriage, make it directed at any immoral behavior. So a small inn could refuse service to an unmarried couple, or businesses that are providing goods or services directed at couples could refuse service if it is determined that the parties are unmarried and unchaste.
All businesses and services should have an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or with no reason at all. When anyone objects to such a decision, all individuals should have an absolute right to refuse to do business with that particular business or person for any reason or with no reason at all. There should be no government involvement in such choices/squabbles.
This is already what the law is supposed to be, as the government has no constitutional authority to compel anyone to sell anything, but to codify it in state law isn’t a bad idea.
Nice try but ain’t gonna fly.