Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Governor Pence finally did it (POL)

pjstroh
pjstroh
Apr 6, 2015
11:56pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman


Now lets talk about my home state of Indiana. The media and Liberals have successfully bastardized the truth regarding the Indiana law and it's intent. It was a very narrow law intended to allow a photographer who was fined for refusing to shoot a gay wedding the ability to argue his religion in court. That has not been allowed in Indiana. All attorneys agree that it could never be successfully utilized in court to support one's refusal to serve one pizza at the Walkerton, IN pizzeria.

It's inaccurate and untrue to portray Indiana as you have.


Micah Clarke, AMerican Family Association, crafted the bill and stood behind Mike Pence as it was signed into law. Micah Clarke was 100% clear what the intention of the law was for when he spoke directly to the Indianapolis Star....and can you believe it? He contradicts everything Boilerman just said...
Doesn't seem possible considering Boilerman's long history of journalistic integrity on this board.

The bigot bill's biggest supporter isn't shy about the bill's intention

"The bill could have broad implications, according to Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana, an organization lobbying for the measure.

It would allow small businesses — such as bakeries, caterers, florists, and wedding chapels — to refuse services to gay couples based on the owner's religious beliefs, he said. It would also allow adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples, he said."



Boilerman
Boilerman
Apr 7, 2015
12:00am
Block User
I wish that PJ would discontinue cherry picking portions of Boiler's previous posts. If you are going to respond, please allow the readers to see all of what I've written.


Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman


Now lets talk about my home state of Indiana. The media and Liberals have successfully bastardized the truth regarding the Indiana law and it's intent. It was a very narrow law intended to allow a photographer who was fined for refusing to shoot a gay wedding the ability to argue his religion in court. That has not been allowed in Indiana. All attorneys agree that it could never be successfully utilized in court to support one's refusal to serve one pizza at the Walkerton, IN pizzeria.

It's inaccurate and untrue to portray Indiana as you have.


Micah Clarke, AMerican Family Association, crafted the bill and stood behind Mike Pence as it was signed into law. Micah Clarke was 100% clear what the intention of the law was for when he spoke directly to the Indianapolis Star....and can you believe it? He contradicts everything Boilerman just said...
Doesn't seem possible considering Boilerman's long history of journalistic integrity on this board.

The bigot bill's biggest supporter isn't shy about the bill's intention

"The bill could have broad implications, according to Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana, an organization lobbying for the measure.

It would allow small businesses — such as bakeries, caterers, florists, and wedding chapels — to refuse services to gay couples based on the owner's religious beliefs, he said. It would also allow adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples, he said."


Boilerman
Boilerman
Apr 7, 2015
12:12am
Block User
Thank you for PJ's support everything the Boiler previously stated. First of all, let's note a couple of inaccuracies to PJ's post. The Indiana Religious Freedom Law was written by Sen. Scott Schneider, not Micah Clark. Micah's does however, give the exact type of example that Boiler addressed earlier. Boiler argued that the law would find narrow application.............specially when a business decided not to provide services for a gay wedding on religious grounds.

Your example of "bakeries, caterers, florists, and wedding chapels" supports my previous argument. Thank you for your support, PJ.


Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman


Now lets talk about my home state of Indiana. The media and Liberals have successfully bastardized the truth regarding the Indiana law and it's intent. It was a very narrow law intended to allow a photographer who was fined for refusing to shoot a gay wedding the ability to argue his religion in court. That has not been allowed in Indiana. All attorneys agree that it could never be successfully utilized in court to support one's refusal to serve one pizza at the Walkerton, IN pizzeria.

It's inaccurate and untrue to portray Indiana as you have.


Micah Clarke, AMerican Family Association, crafted the bill and stood behind Mike Pence as it was signed into law. Micah Clarke was 100% clear what the intention of the law was for when he spoke directly to the Indianapolis Star....and can you believe it? He contradicts everything Boilerman just said...
Doesn't seem possible considering Boilerman's long history of journalistic integrity on this board.

The bigot bill's biggest supporter isn't shy about the bill's intention

"The bill could have broad implications, according to Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana, an organization lobbying for the measure.

It would allow small businesses — such as bakeries, caterers, florists, and wedding chapels — to refuse services to gay couples based on the owner's religious beliefs, he said. It would also allow adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples, he said."


pjstroh
pjstroh
Apr 7, 2015
12:36am
Block User
A quick parapharse of the last 3 hours:

- Boilerman blasts liberals for spreading lies about the bill...and claims the bill could never discriminate against people.
- Pjstroh proves Boilerman wrong by posting an interview with the primary lobbyist for the bill.
- Boilerman changes his mind from what he said at 9:00AM this morning... and now says the original bill would allow discrimination ...but thats ok because Boilerman is on the same page as the bill's prejudiced lobbyist.

In conclusion, liberals didn't lie about the bill. Boilerman just cant keep his own story or position on the issue straight for more than 2 posts.

alanleroy
alanleroy
Apr 7, 2015
12:56am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
A quick parapharse of the last 3 hours:

- Boilerman blasts liberals for spreading lies about the bill...and claims the bill could never discriminate against people.
- Pjstroh proves Boilerman wrong by posting an interview with the primary lobbyist for the bill.
- Boilerman changes his mind from what he said at 9:00AM this morning... and now says the original bill would allow discrimination ...but thats ok because Boilerman is on the same page as the bill's prejudiced lobbyist.

In conclusion, liberals didn't lie about the bill. Boilerman just cant keep his own story or position on the issue straight for more than 2 posts.

I think Boiler's position is more nuanced than PJ claims. Boiler has said the bill will allow for NARROW interpretation, but not widespread discrimination. So, for example, a Bakery could refuse to bake a Gay Wedding Cake because they are Religiously Opposed to Gay Marriage, but they would have to bake a Gay Orgy Celebration Cake with Penis decorations as long as it does not include two grooms.

Boilerman
Boilerman
Apr 7, 2015
12:59am
Block User
Boiler has pointed out many times that the word "discrimination" has been bastardized and he chooses not to participate as Liberals do. Boiler points out that humans discriminate in every single decision that they make every minute of the day. We discriminate when we choose a restaurant, and gays are discriminatory as they will only have sex with those of the same gender. I also argued consistently aregued that the law would not allow a restaurant to refuse service bases on one's sexual disposition.

PJ has been copying portions of Boiler's past posts, and I wonder why his is not doing so when making this claim.



Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
A quick parapharse of the last 3 hours:

- Boilerman blasts liberals for spreading lies about the bill...and claims the bill could never discriminate against people.
- Pjstroh proves Boilerman wrong by posting an interview with the primary lobbyist for the bill.
- Boilerman changes his mind from what he said at 9:00AM this morning... and now says the original bill would allow discrimination ...but thats ok because Boilerman is on the same page as the bill's prejudiced lobbyist.

In conclusion, liberals didn't lie about the bill. Boilerman just cant keep his own story or position on the issue straight for more than 2 posts.


Boilerman
Boilerman
Apr 7, 2015
1:10am
Block User
Alanleroy is partially correct with regards to Boilers argument. I disagree with Alan's stance on the baker and the orgy. In fact, the baker could legally pass on this party for at least two viable reasons. He could pass simply because he finds orgies offensive........gay or straight. He could also pass because he finds gay sex to be in contrast with his religious beliefs.

Our baker would be required, however, to shoot a tasteful studio session with gay folks.

I ask again, if the Liberals stance is so strong why must Liberals twist the truth?




Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
A quick parapharse of the last 3 hours:

- Boilerman blasts liberals for spreading lies about the bill...and claims the bill could never discriminate against people.
- Pjstroh proves Boilerman wrong by posting an interview with the primary lobbyist for the bill.
- Boilerman changes his mind from what he said at 9:00AM this morning... and now says the original bill would allow discrimination ...but thats ok because Boilerman is on the same page as the bill's prejudiced lobbyist.

In conclusion, liberals didn't lie about the bill. Boilerman just cant keep his own story or position on the issue straight for more than 2 posts.

I think Boiler's position is more nuanced than PJ claims. Boiler has said the bill will allow for NARROW interpretation, but not widespread discrimination. So, for example, a Bakery could refuse to bake a Gay Wedding Cake because they are Religiously Opposed to Gay Marriage, but they would have to bake a Gay Orgy Celebration Cake with Penis decorations as long as it does not include two grooms.


pjstroh
pjstroh
Apr 7, 2015
1:23am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Alanleroy is partially correct with regards to Boilers argument. I disagree with Alan's stance on the baker and the orgy. In fact, the baker could legally pass on this party for at least two viable reasons. He could pass simply because he finds orgies offensive........gay or straight. He could also pass because he finds gay sex to be in contrast with his religious beliefs.

Our baker would be required, however, to shoot a tasteful studio session with gay folks.

I ask again, if the Liberals stance is so strong why must Liberals twist the truth?


Discrimination: (n) 1. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

I'm sorry that Boilerman doesn't seem to understand the definition of the word discrimination. The Indiana Law no longer allows for the scenario Boilerman describes to occur...because that is discrimination...it is spelled out in the new law and prohibited. As of Friday Mike Pence agrees such discrimination is immoral.

His anti-gay lobbiest that pushed the bill still disagrees....and so does non-discriminatory Boilerman (at least for now...is it lunchtime yet?).

Boilerman
Boilerman
Apr 7, 2015
2:12am
Block User
Boiler had Cincinnati style chili for lunch.


Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Alanleroy is partially correct with regards to Boilers argument. I disagree with Alan's stance on the baker and the orgy. In fact, the baker could legally pass on this party for at least two viable reasons. He could pass simply because he finds orgies offensive........gay or straight. He could also pass because he finds gay sex to be in contrast with his religious beliefs.

Our baker would be required, however, to shoot a tasteful studio session with gay folks.

I ask again, if the Liberals stance is so strong why must Liberals twist the truth?


Discrimination: (n) 1. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

I'm sorry that Boilerman doesn't seem to understand the definition of the word discrimination. The Indiana Law no longer allows for the scenario Boilerman describes to occur...because that is discrimination...it is spelled out in the new law and prohibited. As of Friday Mike Pence agrees such discrimination is immoral.

His anti-gay lobbiest that pushed the bill still disagrees....and so does non-discriminatory Boilerman (at least for now...is it lunchtime yet?).


Boilerman
Boilerman
Apr 7, 2015
2:19am
Block User
Within the gay community, it is common that these folks support one another. Many, if not most, direct a disproportionate amount of their business to folks who are also gay.

Does PJ believe it is acceptable that a gay person discriminates in such a fashion against straight folks?


Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Alanleroy is partially correct with regards to Boilers argument. I disagree with Alan's stance on the baker and the orgy. In fact, the baker could legally pass on this party for at least two viable reasons. He could pass simply because he finds orgies offensive........gay or straight. He could also pass because he finds gay sex to be in contrast with his religious beliefs.

Our baker would be required, however, to shoot a tasteful studio session with gay folks.

I ask again, if the Liberals stance is so strong why must Liberals twist the truth?


Discrimination: (n) 1. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

I'm sorry that Boilerman doesn't seem to understand the definition of the word discrimination. The Indiana Law no longer allows for the scenario Boilerman describes to occur...because that is discrimination...it is spelled out in the new law and prohibited. As of Friday Mike Pence agrees such discrimination is immoral.

His anti-gay lobbiest that pushed the bill still disagrees....and so does non-discriminatory Boilerman (at least for now...is it lunchtime yet?).


Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now