Time for me to move.
without context ... that could mean two very different things lol
Time for me to move.
I wonder if they'll break contract. Stranger things have happened.
Interesting times indeed.
Would they have grounds to break the agreement?
They realize these laws will be struck down by the SC right? All it's going to take is one challenge.
so insecure about their beliefs.
without context ... that could mean two very different things lol
"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said.
They realize these laws will be struck down by the SC right? All it's going to take is one challenge.
You should be.I'm embarrassed for my state and ashamed to live here
But did you know they have the biggest cross in the world?
I think we should wait until the law gets abused before we express outrage.
Is Jesus short sighted or something? Oh well at least Jesus never made a big scene at the temple about the fact that money and the trappings of wealth have no place in a place of worship, or that wealth itself was a barrier on the road to heaven.
So, in theory can businesses also turn down Moslems or Jews or any other religion? Or is this Bill soley against gay people?
But did you know they have the biggest cross in the world?
Because turning away customers as a business is a genius move.
So, in theory can businesses also turn down Moslems or Jews or any other religion? Or is this Bill soley against gay people?
religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or
local government action may not substantially burden a person's right
to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the
burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a
compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means
of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a
person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or
is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government
action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of
the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who
asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief,
including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory
damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees
And before anyone says "Its not fair to hurt the citizens over this!" They voted for these clowns, so they're just as complicit.
That's in Illinois.
Whoops! Fixed.
Only once. What was interesting is that it went to Obama while it overwhelmingly went to Mitch Daniels. Then it elected Joe Donnelly (D) to the Senate while voting for Mitt Romney by 10+%.Indiana is strange politically. It's hard to figure out.
It went to Obama twice, I believe, but it has some very far right laws.
As someone who lives just north of Indy, I'm sorry to say you're right. It sucks for the city, because the Mayor came out against the bill, as well as almost every major business in the city, but the governor ignored them because he wants to run for president and things this will help him. It's totally the State acting against the interests of the City.I hope GenCon moves.
I like the show in Indianapolis, but there have to be consequences for this sort of thing.
I hope GenCon moves.
I like the show in Indianapolis, but there have to be consequences for this sort of thing.
I'm embarrassed for my state and ashamed to live here
In a statement explaining his decision, he pointed to President Barack Obama's health care law -- which triggered a lawsuit by Hobby Lobby to ensure the company wasn't required to cover birth control through its employees' health insurance plans.
Here's the synopsis of the law:
religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or
local government action may not substantially burden a person's right
to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the
burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a
compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means
of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a
person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or
is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government
action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of
the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who
asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief,
including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory
damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees