Started By
Message
re: Local GOP: Going Full Retard (Arkansas)
Posted on 2/5/15 at 11:31 pm to DaleDenton
Posted on 2/5/15 at 11:31 pm to DaleDenton
quote:
I have seen where groups go after churches for members being expelled from the church because of race, sexual preference, etc which isn't very Christlike for these churches...
If you have seen this, actually seen this rather than some trumped up BS, then they are absolutely wrong. We would never kick out anyone there to our worship services.
But Christians should be allowed not to marry if anyone comes to the church to do so in these circumstances. I can say no to any couple, as I have, however under threat of suit...
also if a Christian owns a cake business, should they be able to not take the business of a gay couple if it violates their religion to agree to do so? Muslims practicing certain laws would actually do more than say no! Christians simply want the right to say No... Rather than being forced out of business if they violate their collective consciences.
and yes Dale, there are couple going into Christian Assemblies asking the pastors to do their weddings, if they don't, they are claiming hate crimes. It is going to get fairly nuts the coming few years.
Yes, Jesus broke the laws by claiming to be the Son of God and was killed for it...
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service,
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Homosexuals will be married? Just for fun, of course
0
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:40 am to SunHog
So, um, How bout those Hogs? 
Is there anyway we can get this shite moved to an OT board or something? Maybe it's just me, but I'm tired of seeing it everyday.
Is there anyway we can get this shite moved to an OT board or something? Maybe it's just me, but I'm tired of seeing it everyday.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:16 am to opdogg20
I would have no problem with that...
Posted on 2/6/15 at 5:43 am to opdogg20
Then don't click the link.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 5:46 am to Razorback Reverend
I don't think anyone is trying to force religious institutions to marry people who do not qualify for marriage under that religion's beliefs. The law in Fayetteville specifically excluded religious institutions from having to do so. If that is why you opposed the Fayetteville law, or why you support the GOP state law, then you are being influenced by something that is not happening.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 7:44 am to SunHog
I know Bart personally. I grew up with him. His dad was my coach for a spell. He was also a hell of a baseball player for AR. They are a great family, and he's a good guy. I'm indifferent on the issue, but I have to say Bart has brought up some good points.
LINK
LINK
quote:
Flowers also asked why the legislation was necessary. Hester said the situation the Fayetteville ordinance would have imposed on businesses if it had remained in place.
"I'm an employer, you're an employee. I cannot ask you about your sexuality," Hester said. "But you can then sue me as an employer based on what you perceive of my perception of your perceived sexuality is."
"That's impossible for an employer to work under and they can't function, and I feel we have an overwhelming responsibility as a state to make sure we have a level playing field for all involved," he said.
Flowers, a lawyer, questioned the burden of proof that Hester described.
"I'm just wondering how burdensome this is actually going to be for an employer?" she said, adding the process is "allowing the people of Fayetteville to speak."
Hester replied, "I think that's a fair argument and the return to that is, we could just have no state laws and the municipalities would just fight all the time about what they're going to do.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:14 am to LOCO5150
quote:
"I'm just wondering how burdensome this is actually going to be for an employer?
No different than religious discrimination.
quote:
"I think that's a fair argument and the return to that is, we could just have no state laws and the municipalities would just fight all the time about what they're going to do.
So Bart is for a strong centralized government all the time or only when it suits his needs?
Posted on 2/6/15 at 11:36 am to Person of interest
I hate to be a cynic, but I'm guessing:
quote:
only when it suits his needs
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:09 pm to Hog on the Hill
(no message)
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:10 pm to Person of interest
When there is federal LBGT protection he will be all about local control.
Posted on 2/10/15 at 6:31 am to SunHog
Saw the headline but didn't read it, should have known it was Bart.
Posted on 2/10/15 at 5:35 pm to SLC
Bart's law will have unintended negative consequences, and most likely will be found to be unconstitutional anyway.
Choads gonna choad.
Choads gonna choad.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 1:36 pm to SunHog
Well, we can't even claim "Thank God for Mississippi" on this one
Posted on 2/13/15 at 4:59 pm to Porker Face
Blue Hog Report does a nice job explaining why Hester's bill will fail:
Click link to read the full post.
quote:
The bill, disingenuously titled, “An Act to Amend the Law Concerning Ordinances of Cities and Counties by Creating the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act,” purports to be a pro-business measure that will “improve intrastate commerce by ensuring that businesses, organizations, and employers doing business in the state are subject to uniform nondiscrimination laws and obligations.” Specifically, it prohibits any municipality or county from passing any anti-discrimination measure “that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.”
...
How is that going to improve intrastate business, you ask? Good question. It basically requires one to assume that there are Arkansas businesses who would love to expand/relocate to more profitable areas, but are too afraid to do so unless and until they know for sure that the new market is not going to suddenly stop them from being able to discriminate against homosexuals.
Even assuming such businesses exist–as I’m sure Bart Hester does–it remains unclear how pandering to them is going to improve business within the state.
But that’s not really why Hester included the language about improving business. Nope, that language was included solely because the drafter of this bill thought that he or she had come up with a clever way to get around the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Romer v. Evans.
- See more at: LINK
Click link to read the full post.
This post was edited on 2/13/15 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 2/26/15 at 3:20 pm to SunHog
Sen. Hester also is sponsoring HB 1158 that will effectively erode the state's ability to license professions
LINK
So a plumber/engineer/any other profession can do work at someone's house without a license...as long as s/he doesn't advertise his services.
Why were these licensure boards created in the first place? According to Sen. Hester "reduce competition and increase prices to consumers".
It certainly had nothing to do with the charlatans and quacks running around back in the day
LINK
So a plumber/engineer/any other profession can do work at someone's house without a license...as long as s/he doesn't advertise his services.
Why were these licensure boards created in the first place? According to Sen. Hester "reduce competition and increase prices to consumers".
It certainly had nothing to do with the charlatans and quacks running around back in the day
This post was edited on 2/26/15 at 3:21 pm
Page 7 of 7
Latest Arkansas News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News