NBA, Pacers issue statement in response to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act law

Pro Basketball Talk ^ | Mar 28, 2015, 6:30 PM EDT | Brett Pollakoff

[Liberty1st]

The NBA and the Indiana Pacers released a joint statement on Saturday in regard to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was recently signed into law in Indiana.

The official release:

[newfreep]

Racists acting stupidly. Again. (h/t imam obamatollah)

[GSWarrior]

Ditto. Everyone needs to chill out.

[don-o]

And if one did decide that then how could you prevent it under this law?

Why does it have to be prevented? No one is being deprived of life, liberty or property. The couple gets their cake. The racist has his religious liberty protected. No one is compelled.

[9YearLurker]

Here is my post #45 in its entirety:

“It was idiotic backward of Pence and the state of Indiana to sign into law legislation that permits wholesale discrimination against gays.” (I actually had meant to have an “and” between idiotic and backward.)

The legislation is meant to enable retailers to discriminate against gays on religious grounds—and if Pence didn’t now realize he’d made a mistake with it, he wouldn’t be looking to change something he just signed this week.

You’re the one who introduced the phrase “one-sided discriminatory straw-man” and you did so in reference to my post guessing that Don-o did not support a return to Jim Crow, but instead to enabling retailers to discriminate.

[sam_whiskey]

It’s not about judging one religion to be bogus and another one to be legitimate. It’s ultimately about whether the government has a compelling interest that permits it to presumably “burden” the religious liberty of the individual/business being sued.

[rollo tomasi]

"The legislation is meant to enable retailers to discriminate against gays on religious grounds..."

Yes and a Jewish person discriminating against a Christian if the so freely choose, a Muslim discriminating against a Jewish person if they freely choose and a homosexual discriminating against a Christian/Muslim/Orthodox Jew if the freely choose etc...

Does that completely line up with post #45? No, you posted a one sided POV then dropped the interracial straw man later on (Where case law serves as protection). Then you claimed some sort of facts which where 180 degrees out of phase with Indian's law and associating it with Jim Crowish one sided discriminatory actions that only protected the Chrisitan faction.

[rollo tomasi]

Sorry, Indiana’s law

[Liberty1st]

OK...thanks you for the info, I appreciate it.

[Liberty1st]

So you think it’s fine for the State to punish a business that won’t cater to the homosexual movement when doing so would violate the religious beliefs of the people who own that business?

[9YearLurker]

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?

[rollo tomasi]

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.

[rollo tomasi]

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.