Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Obama vs. religious freedom

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
AuthorMessage
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/11/2014, 4:35 pm

happy jack wrote:

Y'know, edge, all I have done here is to dissect the rules that Heretic has laid out. If you don't like those rules, you might want to take it up with him rather than with me.

Here's what you said:
happy jack wrote:

No, I do not think that a Muslim has the right to refuse service to a Jewish person, or vice versa. Nor do I think that gays should be refused service based upon their sexual orientation.

That looks straight forward and clear to me.
Now what is the point you're trying to make?
Why do you have to "dissect" anything?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/11/2014, 5:13 pm

edge540 wrote:
 
Now what is the point you're trying to make?
Why do you have to "dissect" anything?

The point I am making is that his rules need to be applied to all proprietors, not just the ones of his choosing. If one proprietor, the T-shirt store operator, is allowed to discriminate against a "product", as Heretic puts it, then the other proprietor, the baker, should be equally allowed to discriminate against a "product".
Isn't that right?
If not, why not?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/12/2014, 10:21 am

happy jack wrote:

Glad to see we’re finally on the same page.
We are?....well let's see, shall we?

So jack, just to be clear, do you agree with Michele Bachmann or the Arizona governor?

Quote :
Michele Bachmann: I'm 'sorry' Arizona gov vetoed anti-gay bill
 
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer received kudos from many of her fellow Republicans for vetoing a controversial bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs.

But Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is not one of those Republicans. The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus told ABC News-Yahoo News that she was “sorry” Brewer struck down Senate Bill 1062.

“I believe that tolerance is a two-way street, and we need to respect everyone’s rights, including the rights of people who have sincerely held religious beliefs,” Bachmann told ABC’s Jeff Zeleny in the interview.

Bachmann went on to say there is a “terrible intolerance afoot in the United States” that is directed at people who have strongly held religious beliefs.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/03/05/michele-bachmann-jan-brewer-gay-bill-religious-freedom/  
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/12/2014, 3:55 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Glad to see we’re finally on the same page.
We are?....well let's see, shall we?

So jack, just to be clear, do you agree with Michele Bachmann or the Arizona governor?

Quote :
Michele Bachmann: I'm 'sorry' Arizona gov vetoed anti-gay bill
 
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer received kudos from many of her fellow Republicans for vetoing a controversial bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs.

But Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is not one of those Republicans. The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus told ABC News-Yahoo News that she was “sorry” Brewer struck down Senate Bill 1062.

“I believe that tolerance is a two-way street, and we need to respect everyone’s rights, including the rights of people who have sincerely held religious beliefs,” Bachmann told ABC’s Jeff Zeleny in the interview.

Bachmann went on to say there is a “terrible intolerance afoot in the United States” that is directed at people who have strongly held religious beliefs.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/03/05/michele-bachmann-jan-brewer-gay-bill-religious-freedom/  







I don’t like this law based upon one line specifically:

The person’s religious belief is sincerely held ....

Unless one is wearing Heretic’s Hate Crime Detecting Helmet, that is not something that can be proven or disproven.



By the way, I love the choice of headline of your ‘source’:


Michele Bachmann: I'm 'sorry' Arizona gov vetoed anti-gay bill


Below is the bill in what I believe is its entirety.
The next time you post, could you highlight the section or sections that include the words ‘gay’, ‘anti-gay’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’, or …. you know…. something that actually shows that the author of the headline isn’t a fucking liar?






http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SB 1062 / HB 2153
exercise of religion; state action.
Sponsors: Senators Yarbrough: Barto, Worsley

W/D Committee on Judiciary
DPA Committee on Government
DPA Caucus and COW
X As Transmitted to Governor
OVERVIEW
HB 2153 revises the definition of exercise of religion and person and extends the prohibition on
substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion to applications of the law by
nongovernmental persons.
HISTORY
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The latter portion of the provision is known as the Free Exercise Clause. In
1990, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which instructed courts
to apply strict scrutiny when government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion,
even if the burden results from a law of general applicability. However, the United States
Supreme Court has since held that the federal RFRA may not be extended to the states and local
governments (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)).
In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, Arizona enacted state-level protection from the
government substantially burdening the free exercise of religion using the strict scrutiny
compelling interest test (Laws 1999, Chapter 332). Accordingly, government may substantially
burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the
person is both in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive
means of furthering that compelling governmental interest (A.R.S. § 41-1493.01). Exercise of
religion is defined as the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a
religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of
religious belief (A.R.S. § 41-1493).
PROVISIONS
• Expands the definition of exercise of religion by including the practice and observance of
religion.
• Expands the definition of person to include any individual, association, partnership,
corporation, church, or other business entity.
• Modifies, from government to state action, the prohibition on burdening a person’s exercise
of religion, except under certain circumstances.
• Clarifies that the government or a nongovernmental person enforcing state action must
demonstrate that the application of the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is in
furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of
furthering the compelling governmental interest. SB 1062 / HB 2153

Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session 2 February 24, 2014
• Maintains that a person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this Act may
assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and specifies that this
applies regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
• Stipulates that a person that asserts a violation of this Act must establish the following:
 The person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief;
 The person’s religious belief is sincerely held; and
 The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.
• Allows a person asserting a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, whose religious
exercise is burdened, to receive injunctive and declaratory relief.
• Prescribes the definition of state action to include government action and the application of
any law by a nongovernmental person and specifies that the requirements in statute relating
to professional or occupational licenses and appointments to government offices are not  included in the definition of state action.
• Makes technical and conforming changes.  



Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session 2 February 24, 2014
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/12/2014, 6:23 pm

happy jack wrote:

By the way, I love the choice of headline of your ‘source’:


Michele Bachmann: I'm 'sorry' Arizona gov vetoed anti-gay bill


Below is the bill in what I believe is its entirety.
The next time you post, could you highlight the section or sections that include the words ‘gay’, ‘anti-gay’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’, or …. you know…. something that actually shows that the author of the headline isn’t a fucking liar?

Are you seriously trying to say that this bill is not an anti-gay bill?
If you are, well then you're full of shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062

I take it you agree with the Arizona governor? Did she do the right thing?

Gov. Brewer: "I'll 'do the right thing' for Arizona"
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/12/2014, 11:13 pm

edge540 wrote:
 Are you seriously trying to say that this bill is not an anti-gay bill?
If you are, well then you're full of shit.




You probably missed this part in my last post, ....


The next time you post, could you highlight the section or sections that include the words ‘gay’, ‘anti-gay’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’, or …. you know…. something that actually shows that the author of the headline isn’t a fucking liar?


.... but that's OK - these things happen.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/13/2014, 7:24 am

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
 Are you seriously trying to say that this bill is not an anti-gay bill?
If you are, well then you're full of shit.




You probably missed this part in my last post, ....


The next time you post, could you highlight the section or sections that include the words ‘gay’, ‘anti-gay’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’, or …. you know…. something that actually shows that the author of the headline isn’t a fucking liar?


.... but that's OK - these things happen.

And you probably missed this part of my last post which explains why
the Arizona anti gay bill is anti gay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062

So does this one:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140219arizona-senate-oks-bill-boosting-service-refusal.html

Quote :
Democrats and civil-rights groups opposed the bill pushed by social conservatives, saying it would allow discriminatory actions by businesses.

But the sponsor, Sen. Steve Yarbrough of Chandler, said his push for Senate Bill 1062 was prompted by a New Mexico case in which the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to take pictures of their wedding. He said he is protecting religious rights.

“This bill is not about allowing discrimination,” Yarbrough said during a debate that stretched for nearly two hours. “This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.”

Now there's a fucking liar....and a bigot.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/13/2014, 3:47 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
 Are you seriously trying to say that this bill is not an anti-gay bill?
If you are, well then you're full of shit.




You probably missed this part in my last post, ....


The next time you post, could you highlight the section or sections that include the words ‘gay’, ‘anti-gay’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’, or …. you know…. something that actually shows that the author of the headline isn’t a fucking liar?


.... but that's OK - these things happen.

And you probably missed this part of my last post which explains why
the Arizona anti gay bill is anti gay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062

So does this one:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140219arizona-senate-oks-bill-boosting-service-refusal.html

Quote :
Democrats and civil-rights groups opposed the bill pushed by social conservatives, saying it would allow discriminatory actions by businesses.

But the sponsor, Sen. Steve Yarbrough of Chandler, said his push for Senate Bill 1062 was prompted by a New Mexico case in which the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to take pictures of their wedding. He said he is protecting religious rights.

“This bill is not about allowing discrimination,” Yarbrough said during a debate that stretched for nearly two hours. “This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.”

Now there's a fucking liar....and a bigot.



Regardless of what anyone says is in the bill, it is the actual text of the bill that matters.
So, once again:


The next time you post, could you highlight the section or sections that include the words ‘gay’, ‘anti-gay’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’, or …. you know…. something that actually shows that the author of the headline isn’t a fucking liar?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/13/2014, 4:17 pm

happy jack wrote:

Regardless of what anyone says is in the bill, it is the actual text of the bill that matters.

Yep, the bill would allow bigots to legally discriminate against gays.
That's why it's an anti gay bill, genius and that's the bottom line. Period.
Those words, ‘gay’, ‘anti-gay’, ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’ don't have to be in the bill. Nice red herring, BTW.

Perhaps you should google "arizona anti gay bill" and see what you get.

Oh shit, here's what I got:

Quote :
Brewer's staff worked on Ariz. anti-gay bill before veto
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/11/arizona-governor-anti-gay-bill/6290811/

Another in a long_ very_ long list of fucking liars.

google is your friend, jack

Is everybody a "fucking liar"?

Of course not, but that's OK - these things happen.

Au revoir


Last edited by edge540 on 3/13/2014, 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/13/2014, 4:38 pm

In light of what the text of the bill actually says as opposed to what some claim it says, why is the language of the bill any more controversial than the language laid out in this bill?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/13/2014, 7:31 pm

happy jack wrote:
In light of what the text of the bill actually says as opposed to what some claim it says, why is the language of the bill any more controversial than the language laid out in this bill?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah. Well just for the record, the First Amendment is not a "bill," is it?  

But let's get real, shall we?  As cited earlier, The sponsor of the bill openly admitted that this was aimed at gay people.

Quote :
But the sponsor, Sen. Steve Yarbrough of Chandler, said his push for Senate Bill 1062 was prompted by a New Mexico case in which the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to take pictures of their wedding. He said he is protecting religious rights.

“This bill is not about allowing discrimination,” Yarbrough said during a debate that stretched for nearly two hours. “This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.”

Try doing your own fucking research for a change.   There are actually some issues surrounding all of this that are worth discussing.  Of course, we're not discussing those... because that would require actually thinking, and that's not something that you have demonstrated on this forum in quite some time.

And what the fuck is this?

happy jack wrote:

My presence here disrupts the usual custom of the regular posters jacking each other off while telling each other how smart they all are.

Real classy!
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9380

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/13/2014, 8:14 pm

Scorpion wrote:

Try doing your own fucking research for a change.   There are actually some issues surrounding all of this that are worth discussing.  Of course, we're not discussing those... because that would require actually thinking, and that's not something that you have demonstrated on this forum in quite some time.
The jig has been up for quite some time.
Scorpion wrote:
And what the fuck is this?

happy jack wrote:

My presence here disrupts the usual custom of the regular posters jacking each other off while telling each other how smart they all are.

Scorpion wrote:
Real classy!
Shhhhhh.... clown thinks he's putting something over on us.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/13/2014, 8:20 pm

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well just for the record, the First Amendment is not a "bill," is it?  

 Rolling Eyes 




Scorpion wrote:

And what the fuck is this?

happy jack wrote:

My presence here disrupts the usual custom of the regular posters jacking each other off while telling each other how smart they all are.



The truth.
Why do you ask?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/13/2014, 8:26 pm

Pffft... Happy's a tried and true sheep of the GOP, the uselessly vapid, literalist-WorldNutDaily type that thinks there's no such thing as "separation of church and state" since it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Unless the Arizona law specifically states "we hate fags", he'll gleefully deny the relevance with a Madd Maxx type furor.

He's still burned by the fact that there actually is a legal/applicable definition of a hate crime ruining the fun for him and all of his bigoted friends, to the point where he laughably tried to argue the concept of mens rea out of existence. It's not surprising he's upset about the Arizona law getting the kabosh since it's doing the same.

happy jack wrote:
My presence here disrupts the usual custom of the regular posters jacking each other off while telling each other how smart they all are.

Mmmm.... Funny he doesn't offer anything substantial or mind blowing other than the usual trolling. But that would require class, logic, and far more research rather than the usual copy/paste from Fox News/Drudge that we're used to. I can't tell if it's on purpose 'cause he knows he's full of shit, or he's just too stupid to care.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9380

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/14/2014, 11:16 am

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:
My presence here disrupts the usual custom of the regular posters jacking each other off while telling each other how smart they all are.

Mmmm....  Funny he doesn't offer anything substantial or mind blowing other than the usual trolling.  But that would require class, logic, and far more research rather than the usual copy/paste from Fox News/Drudge that we're used to.  I can't tell if it's on purpose 'cause he knows he's full of shit, or he's just too stupid to care.
The telling part of his remark is: while telling each other how smart they all are.

That statement simply reeks of resentment. Day after day,week after week,year after year all his talking points have been knocked down and destroyed by one or all of us.

Rather than admit outright defeat he decided to become a troll,and attempts to steer every discussion into a never ending circle of straw man type arguments with his admitted goal being that of Disruption. In other words...If you can't beat them then try to annoy them.

Unfortunately the disruption he seeks never occurs. Instead it just becomes an illustration of his desperation and thus becomes more entertainment for myself and probably others.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/14/2014, 1:10 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
Unfortunately the disruption he seeks never occurs. Instead it just becomes an illustration of his desperation and thus becomes more entertainment for myself and probably others.

Yeah. Well personally, I'm not "entertained."  I'm bored.  I'd welcome "disruption" if it was coming from an honest poster that I simply disagree with... but Jack's crap is just ignorant bullshit.  

As I told you before, I don't give a rats ass about "winning."  That's not why I post.  I'm a political junkie who actually likes to discuss the issues of the day.  I don't have any problem at all with someone disagreeing with me.  In fact, I welcome it.  But I expect an actual discussion, not inane crap about semantics.

I had hoped that Jack could provide some ideological balance on this forum, but clearly, he's not up to the task and he is simply not a worthy adversary.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9380

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/14/2014, 11:06 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Unfortunately the disruption he seeks never occurs. Instead it just becomes an illustration of his desperation and thus becomes more entertainment for myself and probably others.

Yeah. Well personally, I'm not "entertained."  I'm bored.  I'd welcome "disruption" if it was coming from an honest poster that I simply disagree with... but Jack's crap is just ignorant bullshit.
 I have a different relationship with him. He's been gunning for me for years, even going so far as to suggest that I be questioned as a suspect in the fire that killed "Freetime". Rolling Eyes In fact his main reason for joining this board was to try and harass me. Unfortunately for him the previous admin quickly put a stop to it. Very Happy So yeah,seeing him get continuously beaten down and made a fool of does provide a constant source of amusement for me.

Honest posters don't create disruption. "Mirage" was the perfect example. He was as far out on a ledge to the right as anyone,yet we never insulted each other no matter how much we disagreed. He was sincere in his beliefs and the discussions he participated in.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/15/2014, 9:55 am

I should probably just find a different forum, one where everyone agrees with me, and leave y'all to your liberal StrokeFest.
Incidentally, did anyone plan to answer this question?


If one proprietor, the T-shirt store operator, is allowed to discriminate against a "product", as Heretic puts it, then the other proprietor, the baker, should be equally allowed to discriminate against a "product".
Isn't that right?
If not, why not?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/17/2014, 1:00 pm

Answered. Again.  Page 5:

I wrote:
Except that "No gay shit" would not clear the reasonableness test in a discrimination lawsuit.  'Cause it's clearly discrimination based on sexual orientation.  The message "Congratulations Sam and Chris" is only offensive if you know who they are; the whole thing is only offensive if you know who's getting married.  I already explained this:

I wrote:
The customer is still free to do business and get the same neutral, non-offensive T-Shirts that everyone else does.  That's the difference; they are not refused any and all service outright. However, if the owner refuses all biblical quotes or Christian reference or refuses to serve Christians at all, then that would be religious discrimination against the customer.

"No gay shit" is not a valid legal justification for discrimination anymore than "No Jesus shit" is.  I don't know how to explain that any simpler.

Not comprehending the answer isn't the same as it not being answered.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/17/2014, 3:09 pm

Heretic wrote:
 Except that "No gay shit" would not clear the reasonableness test in a discrimination lawsuit.  'Cause it's clearly discrimination based on sexual orientation.  


And “No T-shirts condemning homosexuality based upon one’s religious beliefs” would not clear the reasonableness test in a lawsuit concerning religious discrimination. Because it’s clearly discrimination directed against someone’s religious beliefs.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/17/2014, 8:50 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
   He's been gunning for me for years, even going so far as to suggest that I be questioned as a suspect in the fire that killed "Freetime". 

Show me that post.
Do you ever, ever stop lying?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9380

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/17/2014, 9:34 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
   He's been gunning for me for years, even going so far as to suggest that I be questioned as a suspect in the fire that killed "Freetime". 

Show me that post.
Coming right up,asshat Very Happy 

Tool wrote:
Do you ever, ever stop lying?

I suggest you look directly into a mirror and keep repeating the above. In fact,keep doing it until you pass out. Maybe you'll fall on that empty head and shake loose a brain cell.

Ignorant troll wrote:
I hope that this is looked into very carefully, and I hope that artie's thread on the n o f r e e. f o r u m o t i o n board is one of the first things they comb through.”

That is a quite reasonable statement to make, and I think that if there is found to be anything at all suspicious about free’s death, any and all conscientious law enforcement personnel (who have been notified, incidentally) looking into her case would be grossly derelict in their duties if they willfully ignored that thread. When there is such an odious public outpouring of hate directed at an individual (who may or may not have died under questionable circumstances – I will freely admit that I do not have that information) on an almost hourly basis during any given business day, I would think that the investigators would look closely at each of the contributors to that thread, and would look especially closely at the hate-filled author of said thread.


I will be happy to provide a link to anyone members here that are not ignorant trolls..AKA:Everyone here but stupid.

We all know that dim bulb will immediately attempt to turn this into another circle jerk. Since I won't be replying to him,he will fail once again. Very Happy Sleep
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/18/2014, 12:36 am

happy jack wrote:
And “No T-shirts condemning homosexuality based upon one’s religious beliefs” would not clear the reasonableness test in a lawsuit concerning religious discrimination. Because it’s clearly discrimination directed against someone’s religious beliefs.

Yeah, good luck with that; it'll fail, and laughably so. I already went over why several times.  Have a 4 yr old translate using crayons.

Seriously, do you not know we're talking about extant legal definitions or are you just in denial that they exist, much like hate crime legislation?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5996

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/18/2014, 3:57 pm

Heretic wrote:
   Have a 4 yr old translate using crayons.


Would that be the same 4 year-old who originated the concept of discrimination against a product?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/19/2014, 9:08 am

You go Gregg, I'm sure you will be much more successful than your counterparts in Utah and Oklahoma.

Quote :
Zoeller ready to defend Indiana marriage laws

INDIANAPOLIS | Attorney General Greg Zoeller is confident he can defend Indiana's laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and denying recognition to gay marriages performed elsewhere against five federal lawsuits filed this month seeking to have the statutes declared unconstitutional.

Speaking with reporters Tuesday, the Republican attorney general said he expects at least some of the cases -- spurred in part by federal courts striking down similar laws in other states -- will be consolidated or delayed to save time.

Regardless, Zoeller said he is ready to defend every state law, and the right of the General Assembly and governor to enact them, against any and all challenges, since that is his job and a key feature of American government.

"There ought to be some opportunity to make sure that the Legislature has got it right -- did it violate the Constitution, did it impinge on people's civil liberties?" Zoeller said.

"This is part of the process to bring the courts in to review, to make sure the statutes we have in place are constitutional."

Among those seeking to overturn Indiana's marriage laws are Bonnie Everly and Lyn Judkins, of Chesteron, who want to be married in Indiana; and Dawn Carver and Pam Eanes, of Munster, who want their Illinois civil union recognized by Indiana.

Zoeller said the lawsuits will not put an undue burden on his staff, since they already participate in thousands of legal cases a year.

He said he has no plans to hire outside counsel to assist in the defense of Indiana's marriage laws because his office previously has defended them successfully in state courts and has submitted arguments in other federal challenges to state marriage laws.

"I think we're as well prepared to defend the statutes as any attorney general in the nation," Zoeller said.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/zoeller-ready-to-defend-indiana-marriage-laws/article_a6288856-bb3b-5753-809b-5338ad916b89.html

Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   

Back to top Go down
 
Obama vs. religious freedom
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 5 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: