Replies

Post #45 was my opinion/assessment of the political action.

My mention of Jim Crow, again, was to differentiate the OP’s and this law’s intent, which was to allow, as opposed to governmentally enforce, discrimination by private businesses.

Is that so hard to understand?

Your talking points have echoed Jim Crowish homosexual straw-man propaganda/talking points. #45 was not so hard to understand. I am leaning towards a 9 year lurking "concerned" troll right now because apparently you have ignored my inquiries about why you think the law only applies to Christians discriminating against homosexuals. It darn self-evident that this law pisses off the corporists who you have echoed in a very concerning manner. Well no poop Sherlock tell us even more obvious talking points.

Do you think homosexuals have the right to harness the power of the State to harm/destroy the economic livelihood of Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jewish business owners who refuse to serve their perverted desires? Should a Muslim photographer be forced to photograph two men's "marriage" ceremony if they think the ceremony itself is an abomination? Does a business owner have the freedom to discriminate against certain behaviors they deem contrary to the benefit of society and against their own conscious? Are you a totalitarian who is sympathetic to the homosexual agenda?

Give me the long Constitutional traditions that recognizes the benefits that homosexuality brings to reason, society, and Constitutional law since 1789. Piss off with case law and decisions by Judges who exercise their own biases. Give me fundamental freedoms/enumerated laws concerned troll. There are plenty in the realm of discrimination of certain behaviors/religious freedom/freedom of assembly/refusal of service.

And for the I don’t know, for the forth time, where does the law say this is strictly only reserved for “Christian on homosexual” discrimination? Since you have kept on ignoring this I assume you are just trolling.