I am shocked this devout Christians do not expect their god to protect them and shower them with prosperity for professing their faith and allegiance to his wishes.Yeah, that would be why the co-owner told the press they were 'in hiding.'A bucketload of money has been raised for them ($258,000 and counting), so perhaps they are closing because they realize they don't need to work for awhile?
https://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza/
But they are getting death threats! Certainly they are! They said so. And they are on Hannity's Fox News program. So now they are heroes, people that stood by the outdated convictions that gays are evil. And like Jesus said, it is easier for a capitalist to get into heaven than a gay man.I am shocked this devout Christians do not expect their god to protect them and shower them with prosperity for professing their faith and allegiance to his wishes.Yeah, that would be why the co-owner told the press they were 'in hiding.'
I will enlighten you again, but at the moment I have to run some errands.
But they are getting death threats! Certainly they are! They said so. And they are on Hannity's Fox News program. So now they are heroes, people that stood by the outdated convictions that gays are evil. And like Jesus said, it is easier for a capitalist to get into heaven than a gay man.I am shocked this devout Christians do not expect their god to protect them and shower them with prosperity for professing their faith and allegiance to his wishes.
And who caters pizza for a Wedding? Granted, I haven't been to many weddings, but not a single one had pizza. Which is odd, because pizza would be much cheaper. Damn it! I should have done pizza!
The one thing I find comical is how this has become a gay thing. I believe this has more to do with Hobby Lobby than gays.
Another observation, typically when Democrats have been involved in the passing of RFRA's it has been about the extension of rights beyond the law. IE allowing the overlooking of a particular restriction based on religious beliefs. When Republicans support it, it has been about the extending a power to people to withdraw rights within the law of others.
The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objectionsThe plain text of the law does allow the Indiana judiciary to find laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be a compelling state interest and there not existing any alternatives to achieving the state's compelling state interest. In other words, the plain text of the law does permit the Indiana judiciary to rule and decide the law does not provide refuge from anti-discriminator laws for those public accommodations wanting to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
linkarticle said:"Indiana Right to Life opposes the proposed changes to Indiana's new RFRA law since they dismantle much of the protections in the law designed to protect pro-life persons, businesses and ministries from being forced to support abortion under government order," Mike Fichter, the president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life, wrote in a statement. The group had supported the law before the changes were made.
The one thing I find comical is how this has become a gay thing. I believe this has more to do with Hobby Lobby than gays.
Another observation, typically when Democrats have been involved in the passing of RFRA's it has been about the extension of rights beyond the law. IE allowing the overlooking of a particular restriction based on religious beliefs. When Republicans support it, it has been about the extending a power to people to withdraw rights within the law of others.
The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objectionslinkarticle said:"Indiana Right to Life opposes the proposed changes to Indiana's new RFRA law since they dismantle much of the protections in the law designed to protect pro-life persons, businesses and ministries from being forced to support abortion under government order," Mike Fichter, the president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life, wrote in a statement. The group had supported the law before the changes were made.
Meh... what do I know?
The one thing I find comical is how this has become a gay thing. I believe this has more to do with Hobby Lobby than gays.
Another observation, typically when Democrats have been involved in the passing of RFRA's it has been about the extension of rights beyond the law. IE allowing the overlooking of a particular restriction based on religious beliefs. When Republicans support it, it has been about the extending a power to people to withdraw rights within the law of others.
The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objectionslinkarticle said:"Indiana Right to Life opposes the proposed changes to Indiana's new RFRA law since they dismantle much of the protections in the law designed to protect pro-life persons, businesses and ministries from being forced to support abortion under government order," Mike Fichter, the president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life, wrote in a statement. The group had supported the law before the changes were made.
Meh... what do I know?
a pharmacy that won't supply abortion supplies or birth control springs to mind...What is a "right to life" business?
Uh huh. Back to tell us about the solid rock that is legal interpretation of law and why so much money these days is spent on judicial elections? How this law that was passed was in no way a loophole being offered to the religious right? Seems odd the ones whining about exclusions being added to the law now are only those that would want to infringe on other people's rights. Past RFRAs were about making exceptions to expand rights.linkarticle said:"Indiana Right to Life opposes the proposed changes to Indiana's new RFRA law since they dismantle much of the protections in the law designed to protect pro-life persons, businesses and ministries from being forced to support abortion under government order," Mike Fichter, the president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life, wrote in a statement. The group had supported the law before the changes were made.
Meh... what do I know?
On this legal issue, not much and certainly not enough.