- 17,781
- 25,897
The sausage should be on the dick part and the balls should be shriveled cooked mushrooms. Amateurs.
Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*
- Thread starter Malinatar
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Good, fuck stupid people. And it's better for my pizza place. Haha
*edit * sausage would be a waste on the shaft if anything should have just be cheese with cheese melted in spots on the box to. With something more hair shaped on the balls.
*edit * sausage would be a waste on the shaft if anything should have just be cheese with cheese melted in spots on the box to. With something more hair shaped on the balls.
Hoss
Make America's Team Great Again
- 27,659
- 16,106
And they say gays don't recruit.Once you have a rimjob or a blowjob from a guy, you won't go back. We definitely know how to use our tongues.You're missing out, bro.
It's weird how all that stuff in history just suddenly stopped for no reason and no one can figure out why.
lol that you think conservatives are ginning up this ridiculous hysteria.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 29,886
- 83,295
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 73,147
- 214,433
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
Well I'm conflicted here in that I think both sides have valid points. Compelling people to make a god hates fags cake or a dick shaped pizza because your civil rights will be offended if they don't is wrong. At same time time we don't want to have people being denied service in restaurants because idiot owner deciding they want to have a no gays allowed for religious reasons policy.
I would look for potential compromise using following metrics.
One is it a generic service versus a custom service. If service is generic then no you cant decided not to service people based upon whatever your cause is. If it's a custom service something that is tailored to each customer then yes you have a right to refuse a custom cake with god hates fags written upon it. Even if a baker is completely willing to make a god loves fags custom cake but not a god hates fags cake that is fine because the customized nature of the product.
Second is on site versus off site. If you run a restaurant you should take people that come to your door if they meet the basic standards of dress and behavior. Compelling people to provide off site services is wrong it should be a default right of person owning a business to say no I don't want to go take pictures of your gay wedding simply because I don't want to.
Third a exception to the above if service being provided is a effective monopoly in a given area. Does a city have two pharmacies then one of them not providing birth control is fine. If city only has one or both try and deny birth control then they can be compelled to provide a essential service even if they object to it.
Mostly in the end though the problem is evil SJW looking for excuses to sue people that have created the problem.
I would look for potential compromise using following metrics.
One is it a generic service versus a custom service. If service is generic then no you cant decided not to service people based upon whatever your cause is. If it's a custom service something that is tailored to each customer then yes you have a right to refuse a custom cake with god hates fags written upon it. Even if a baker is completely willing to make a god loves fags custom cake but not a god hates fags cake that is fine because the customized nature of the product.
Second is on site versus off site. If you run a restaurant you should take people that come to your door if they meet the basic standards of dress and behavior. Compelling people to provide off site services is wrong it should be a default right of person owning a business to say no I don't want to go take pictures of your gay wedding simply because I don't want to.
Third a exception to the above if service being provided is a effective monopoly in a given area. Does a city have two pharmacies then one of them not providing birth control is fine. If city only has one or both try and deny birth control then they can be compelled to provide a essential service even if they object to it.
Mostly in the end though the problem is evil SJW looking for excuses to sue people that have created the problem.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Its weird that you're well into your adult life and can't recall anything from middle school social studies class about the civil rights era.
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,822
The law itself isnt so much of a big deal. If a business discriminates and a suit is brought on, the compelling interest of anti discrimination laws already on the books would most likely override the RFRA.
So its a big nothing law. Something nonsensical to make religious nutjobs happy. A stupid thing for stupid people.
The big deal is that is more representative of a societal tipping point. American society, both private and corporate, no longer want to deal with this crap. Gay people won. And we really don't want the constant lame exploitative stunts that pandering law makers throw out there.
Its over. Deal with it.
So its a big nothing law. Something nonsensical to make religious nutjobs happy. A stupid thing for stupid people.
The big deal is that is more representative of a societal tipping point. American society, both private and corporate, no longer want to deal with this crap. Gay people won. And we really don't want the constant lame exploitative stunts that pandering law makers throw out there.
Its over. Deal with it.
Kuriin
Just a Nurse
- 4,046
- 1,020
Actually, yes. It's just that MOST conservatives realize how stupid it is. It's a right to discriminate. That's all there is to it. :|
Hoss
Make America's Team Great Again
- 27,659
- 16,106
You sure about that? Cause it sure seems like you're the one saying this state law will mean there are no protections against discriminatory practices. Seems kinda like, between the 2 of us, I'm the one who remembers why jim crow laws went away.
Woefully Inept
Karazhan Raider
- 9,328
- 37,115
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Hoss confirming he lives in an alternate universe.
Jim crow laws went away because the nation realized that segregating based on race was tearing our society apart at the seams and that those practices were, at mnimum, a violation of the founding principles of this nation.
The same thing they started realizing about prejudice against homosexuals in marriage and other arenas sometime during the sexual revolution of the post civil rights era.
I'm going to move there because of this law.
It's like a dream come true. I'm going to open the world's finest chocolates store and refuse to serve fat women.
It's like a dream come true. I'm going to open the world's finest chocolates store and refuse to serve fat women.
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,595
- 7,224
Downhammer
Vyemm Raider
- 1,588
- 4,125
I read an interesting piece today. It suggested that gays should use RFRA to claim that states not recognizing gay marriage "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." They wouldn't even need to make up a gay religion; apparently for much of it's history the Catholic had an actual gay matrimony liturgy. Would be kinda funny if the gays just embraced the law and counter sued everyone. Can you imagine a court having to decide who's interpretation of Christianity was correct?