About fucking time.

Still, Dems need to fight for separation of church and state.

How we need to look at it. From changing text books to changing laws that promotes and gives religion a role in control over our lives must not happen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6298591

This is the thing with this ...

They are trying to weasel this in without using the word christian, it opens the door to its application for religions they find to be less than worthy and also to be used against them.

I used to get questions about whether I supported prayer in school.

I said I did, but people needed to know I supported prayer for EVERYONE.

If Mohamed Senior wants Junior to face Kabah and pray a couple of times a day as is the customary practice of the religion that comes along with it.

You actually had a couple people who were legitimately OK with that, but mostly it took a negative turn from there.

Unfortunately, that teaching has gone virtually unrebutted for decades.

Right, put them into that argument ...

Better ground to battle from than the "we are having our rights attacked!" bullshit.

https://www.google.com/search?q=God+intended+America+to+be+a+Christian+nation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

This isn't getting communicated effectively in a limited medium

I know they say these things, I know there are opinion pieces out there.

What I am saying is, force them to put all their cards on the table all the time.

There is a reason this and other bills don't flat out take that position.

There is nothing in this bill that says "Christianity is the religion of the united states."

That was my original point.

There is a reason they weasel word their way around shit - the sanctity of marriage, the inverse freedom of religion stuff.

I live in a clearly red area.

I can tell you that while my community is rock solid republican, if the republican party was forced into a battle of declaring that the religion of the united states was Christianity it would fracture that support significantly.

It also would draw in everyone not at the table now.

You want to see the apathetic 50% of this country that does not bother to vote get a fire lit under them.

Make THIS the battle.

No, they have not taken this "STAND."

They keep weaseling around at the edges and chipping away at it in the dark while the democratic party, as with everything else, is too damn afraid to force their hand and make them clearly say what they are doing and defend it.

As my link showed.

This was your original post to me:

Make them take that stand

Right, put them into that argument ...

Better ground to battle from than the "we are having our rights attacked!" bullshit.

Putting aside the lack of specifics about how I or anyone is going to make American evangelicals take any specific stand, your original post said nothing about putting anything into a bill or never being able to make any other kind of argument.

Based on what you actually did post, my reply was correct. If you meant something one hell of a lot different than what your original post to me actually said, my only error was not being a mind reader.

I know knee jerk contradicting, especially in subject lines, is a posting tactic, but it's not much of one and it's certainly not a discussion tactic.

Whatever "reading" you might be doing it isn't what I posted, cause no where have I referenced evangelicals in general.

My point clearly has been LEGISLATORS, the laws republicans have passed and are pushing.

But, sure, get testy after I tried to note we weren't connecting in a conciliatory manner and condescend me on discussion topics.

until your Reply 19, which was after my first reply to you. No inkling anywhere in the entire thread before that .But, sure, double down.

My first post that you replied to ...

This is the thing with this ...

They are trying to weasel this in without using the word christian, it opens the door to its application for religions they find to be less than worthy and also to be used against them.

"They"

Indiana lawmakers and governor.

"Weasel this in"

THE LEGISLATION.

"Opens the door to ITS application"

the LAW.

WTF did you think I was referring to?

Wait,that implies you thought, as opposed to doing what you now accuse me of.

only to Indiana lawmakers. Especially since the subject line of your post was:

Its all fun and games until a muslim denies service to a christian

And your post made no mention of a bill or lawmakers.

And the OP is about a poll where those polled side with gays and against the businessowners refusing gays service on religious grounds.

If that's your idea of clear, I can't imagine what your idea of "ambigous" might be.

Your entire claim that the meaning of your post was clear rests on my ability to have read your mind, not on the alleged clarity of what you actually posted because it was far from clear, either on its own or in the context of the OP.

Again, if you specifically meant legislation, you could have said so the first time you posted to me, instead of assuming I'd be able to read your mind. Or, failing to be clear the first time, you could have simply clarified the second time--without a subject line pretending I had just made an untrue claim.

And I trust you know what to do with your personal insults.

I'm done with this.

Yes,

CLEARLY, I am wrong for your not reading my post and the resulting condescending tone of your responses.

Yes,

CLEARLY, I am wrong for your not reading my post and the resulting condescending tone of your responses.

that freedom of religion is only for "Christians". The constitution and the bill of rights ONLY applies to fundamentalist, 7 mountains dominunist, fox brainwashed, koch controlled Christians...ONLY!

Don't you know that all the desists and atheists that wrote those documents wanted a pope to run america?? Its all in David Bartons books I tell ya!

This needs to be made the position they take on these things all the time ...

Even most middle of the road people who don't pay attention to politics understand that discrimination is wrong. Repubs are making asses out of themselves trying to make discrimination legal and I believe people are taking notice.

have quotations around it, or be referred to by its correct name: Religous-based discrimination (without quotations).

It's the business owner who wants his/her "religion freedom" to discriminate. But what about an employee of the business? If I'm working the counter of a bakery and have no need for "religious freedom," and a gay or lesbian couple comes in to order a cake, do I defer to the "religious freedom" of the business owner? Do I deny them their cake because of the business owners beliefs?

And if this is the case, do employees need a "religious freedom law" to protect them for their employers' "religious freedom law?"

Remember, we're now a fascist state.

If 52% sided with LBGT community and 32% opposed it, that means that of the people who really give a shit 61% are on the side of the LGBT in this fight. Correct me if I'm off base here.

so 2/3 of the people in the US can avoid contaminating themselves by doing business with the hateful ones.

We don't need no stinkiin' laws, bigots need to say it loud and say it proud with a big sign in the front windows of their businesses ~ something like

WE HATE LGBT, WE DON"T WANT LGBT BUSINESS

And then all the good people of America will know who the haters are that they need to keep their children away from, and who not to do business with.

Come on haters. Do it. Do it, all you batshit crazy chickenshit weaseltongued nutjob religious freaks. Fly your hate flag proud.

Show us all the color of hate.

If you deny services to gay people you must display a large sign at every entrance to your place of business that clearly states this fact.

The sign must be visible anytime the business is open. Soon all the haters would be out of business and they know it!

They just want to discriminate in private so it doesn't hurt their bottom line.

21st Century Jim Crow laws

There are a lot of people who, while not actively supporting it, just don't care if LGBT people want to marry. I wonder how many in the poll just shrugged their shoulders and offered no opinion. Many properly feel it's none of their business what people do in bed.

That leaves a very vocal minority that sounds bigger than it is.

in the U.S.