Shame on you for looking things up.

An interesting set of rulings. Looks like it goes back and forth a bit.
I'd argue the 1943 reversal isn't necessarily applicable as it specifies that it is the free speech clause of the 1st amendment, NOT the religious liberties clause, an important distinction.

victor809 wrote:

Actually those rulings are based on the free exercise clause.

Abrignac wrote:

If a gay couple is turned away at the door, it's clearly discrimination. Religion or not.

But if the photographer doesn't want to partake in a same sex ceremony, that's their prerogative. Anything else is coercion.

What if it was a nudist wedding? Or sadists? Or cigar smokers?
That photographer should be able to say no if he simply doesn't like their hat.

Anyone who thinks this law will result in bigots running amok, banning the queens and Jews, is simply so friggin used Uncle Sam propping them up each morning that they become belligerent when facing opposition to more government mandates.

Lighten up.
Indiana won't become an empty hole in the middle of our nation.
At least no more so then they already are.

tailgater wrote:

Funny you should say that.
Boston city council voted to ban trips to IN.

Oh, and you forgot to highlight the part where I said "lighten up "

tailgater wrote:

So Indiana doesn't need any tourism or convention business? Maybe that should be added to the state motto. Indiana, stay away because we don't need you or your money whether you like being blown by thinks or not. Have a nice day.

teedubbya wrote:

Refer to one of my earlier posts where I stated this backlash is nothing short of BLACKMAIL, oh so you don't see things the same way WE do.....we'll boycott your state ( even though we don't live there and only come there because YOU FOLKS in Indiana sure know how to treat people when there for a convention.) But WE know $$$ talks and bull**** walks so we'll simply extort the " end result " we're looking for. GREAT.

Did Than Franthisco get boycotted as they became the bastion of Homosexuality in a country who still shunned it? It is this ultra liberal group using disgusting tactics to further their agenda

TMCTLT wrote:

http://www.cigarbid.com/FORUM/c/posts/636362/It-Pays-to-Know-Your-Customer-Base-So-You-Dont-Pizz-Them-Off

Yet you seemed pretty pleased about the results of the boycott against Duck Dynasty.....

I get it, it's BLACKMAIL!!!!!!! and disgusting tactics when someone is doing it for a reason you don't like. That's about the stance I'd expect you to take.

victor809 wrote:

Trying to come up with a different argument once you realized you did in fact post on that thread?

victor809 wrote:

In short the public told us they wouldn't support our stance initially on this issue and well we'd lose a lot of money so we've re thunk it!!


Here's my reply, please show me where I was pleased with the outcome???? This business did what it did over fear of lost income....nothing else. Bringing home the adage of " $$$ really IS the root of all evil.

Cracker Barrel, the same establishment accused of racism against blacks....and you think I support them????

Newsflash, I DON'T

TMCTLT wrote:

Yes, and yet there's still nothing there to show that I supported CB's decision to pull their products. I cannot for the life of me given the FACT that there ARE countless businesses out there READY and WILLING to do business with the homosexual community, WHY do they find it necessary to try to FORCE EVERYONE who doesn't see THEIR life choices the same to risk being scrutinized and ultimately ran out of business.

TMCTLT wrote: