Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indiana Lawmakers Admit “No Gays” Signs Will be Allowed
PoliticusUSA ^ | March 30, 2015 | Adalia Woodbury

Posted on 03/31/2015 10:20:46 AM PDT by EveningStar

... “You guys have said repeatedly that we shouldn’t be able to discriminate against anyone, but if you just ignore the existence of this law, can’t we already do that now? Can’t so-and-so in Richmond put a sign up and say ‘No Gays Allowed?'” she asked. “That’s not against the law, correct?”

“It would depend,” Bosma replied. “If you were in a community that had a human rights ordinance that wouldn’t be the case.”

“But most of the state does not have that, correct?” the reporter pressed.

“That’s correct,” Bosma admitted ...

(Excerpt) Read more at politicususa.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; indiana; liberalagenda; politicususa; rfra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: SeekAndFind

A gay wedding is mockery and a party that celebrates buggery.

A Christian wedding is a religious Sacrament that unites a man and a woman as a unit and honors God, procreation and God’s creation.

Presbyterians are about as “Christian” as Unitarians


41 posted on 03/31/2015 12:14:44 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
The businesses like the bakery and florist actually did serve gays, but refused their business when it involved same-sex weddings.

If the objection is on religious grounds then why wouldn't catering to homosexuals period be a violation of their religious beliefs?

42 posted on 03/31/2015 12:24:22 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why are you helping spread liberal lies? The “No GAYS” signs is an absolute lie being spread by the left.


43 posted on 03/31/2015 12:29:04 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Because they still love them as people. They’re not against their existence, but do not believe in taking part in their weddings.


44 posted on 03/31/2015 12:48:24 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert (www.ouramericanrevival.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
Because they still love them as people. They’re not against their existence, but do not believe in taking part in their weddings.

That makes no sense to me. Homosexuality is sort of OK? It's kind of sinful, but only under certain circumstances?

45 posted on 03/31/2015 12:54:14 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

Bosma’s lying?


46 posted on 03/31/2015 1:06:27 PM PDT by cydcharisse (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ohioman

RE: The “No GAYS” signs is an absolute lie being spread by the left.

The article does not say that there are “NO GAYS” signs. It does say that having those signs will be permitted by this bill.

So, you’re saying that the folks identified as the Senate Pro Tem and Speaker of the House did not say what the article claims they said?

It says in the article:

“Indiana’s Senate Pro Tem and the Speaker of the House held a joint news conference admitting that “No Gays allowed” signs would be permitted in areas within Indiana.”

” Brian Bosma, Speaker of the House and the Senate’s Pro Tem David Long acknowledged that homophobic shop keepers will be allowed to display “No Gays allowed” signs.”


47 posted on 03/31/2015 1:10:23 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

“No gays signs being allowed is also a colossal lie.”

If so, somebody should tell the Senate Pro Tem & Speaker of the House,


48 posted on 03/31/2015 1:14:31 PM PDT by cydcharisse (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It is all bullshit.


49 posted on 03/31/2015 2:34:10 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

I don’t understand why you cannot grasp that it is not the individuals they refuse to serve; it is the fact that they will not participate in the ritual that they believe is wrong.


50 posted on 03/31/2015 2:35:24 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert (www.ouramericanrevival.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ohioman

RE: It is all bullshit.

What is? The report, or what these folks said?


51 posted on 03/31/2015 2:36:47 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

We are denied lodging in many places when traveling with our dog. Rather than expect the hotel to change its policy, we find places that are pet friendly.


52 posted on 03/31/2015 2:48:44 PM PDT by Notasoccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
I don’t understand why you cannot grasp that it is not the individuals they refuse to serve; it is the fact that they will not participate in the ritual that they believe is wrong.

Nobody is asking them to come to the wedding, just bake a cake.

This isn't a simple issue. On the one hand you have people's right to practice their religion as they see fit. On the other hand a person has the right to expect to be served regardless of who they are. But when you have a person's deeply held religious belief being labeled "discrimination" then I think that a person's religious beliefs should take priority, especially in the case of something as unnecessary as backed goods or photographs. But I also think they have an obligation to make it clear who they will serve and who they will not serve because of their religious beliefs. So I think they should clearly display their position, and people will buy their product or not buy it based on that position.

53 posted on 03/31/2015 4:05:31 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

What about photographers? They would have to be there.


54 posted on 03/31/2015 4:23:20 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert (www.ouramericanrevival.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Martin Tell; cydcharisse

Thank you, Martin. And, thanks for the additional details of evidence. It’s nice talking to you.

This is basically a Lefty propaganda non-story taking up a lot of displaced oxygen for the uninformed who are willing to become lathered up over it. Because the Speaker of the House and Pro Tem made remarks that were edited to show their confusion hardly makes the case against the truth of the legislation. When the Marxists perform a pile on, that’s a tip that freedom is under fire.

BTW, I LOVED Cyd Charisse too!


55 posted on 03/31/2015 8:45:08 PM PDT by RitaOK ( VIVA CRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson