Are you sitting for this? Texas governor signs 'Save Chick-fil-A' bill.

@Pherick So if my religious beliefs are to not discriminate against queer people-- then the religious beliefs of those who condemn queer people trump my religious beliefs?

@CopperCicada Sounds like it. Basically, Texas doesn't want bakers having to make cakes for gay people if their "religious" beliefs tell them not to.

You know Proverbs 89:32, "And thou shant bake a cake if thou customers are totally queer".

I have no idea how this will hold up if taken to the Supreme Court.

@Pherick Can you explain why this law offends you so much? Why do you care if Texas chooses to pass laws that counter efforts from the left wing to shut down business that don't share their politics?

@SumKindaMunster The left is in no way trying to shut down a business that doesn't share our politics, atleast I should say the left is not passing laws to make that happen. Are people boycotting their businesses or asking that communities not allow them in? Yes, as is our right.

I am sure you wouldn't argue that a community has the right to argue about what kind of businesses enter into their community right?

@Pherick I wouldn't no. But I also wouldn't get offended or think something untoward happened if the legislature passed a law to protect a business from being unfairly targeted for giving money to organizations that I don't support.

@SumKindaMunster So you think its OK for government to stop the will of the people? So you would be OK with a law that said strip clubs were protected and allowed to open next to churches, even if the church and the surrounding community did not want it there?

Interesting.

In this case, you want bigger government, you want the government telling local people want they want and should want. How very left of you.

@Pherick Wow Pherick that's a strawman response and ridiculously snarky even for the likes of you!

I said nothing of the sort. You wanna try again or are you content with that completely snotty and immature comment?

@SumKindaMunster LOL So you don't like when I hold up a mirror and that's a strawman? I am sorry, but its nothing of the sort.

If this were a law protecting strip clubs or some other business the right didn't like, they would be up in arms about it. However because its a "good christian business" the right is falling over themselves to act like it needs protecting.

Its idiotic and inane.

@Pherick Total non sequitor strawman. And whatever mirror you held up, it only reflected your own fears and anxieties.

It's interesting to see how much more uptight and reactionary you are. In the past, you stayed on point, and while I rarely agreed with you, you expressed yourself in a sympathetic and understandable manner.

So one more time? Why do you care if a legislature passes a law to protect a business from being unfairly targeted for their chosen charity donations?

@SumKindaMunster Its not a strawman, let me explain why. You are seeing this law in one VERY narrow interpretation. I simply asked you to look it more broadly or to look at in used in another manner.

Neither of those is a strawman. I am not misrepresenting anything.

I will explain it one more time, then I am done. This is a law that says, that if my community doesn't wasn't a business because the owner of donates to anti-LGTB groups, that my community doesn't have the right to tell that business no. How can you not see how normal people would have a problem with that? Its a law telling me that what I and my community want don't matter.

I am sure you will call this a strawman, but tweak that slightly. A local business wants to move in and its owner donates to the Chruch of Satan, your community doesn't want it there, but this new law protects it, so it goes in.

Thats why I care. The hypocrisy of the right, in this case, is mind-blowing. The want smaller government, government staying out of people's lives UNLESS its helping pro-christian businesses, then they have no problem getting into everyone's business.

Here's a link to the bill in question:

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/SB01978S.htm

Here's the summary:

[quote]A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the protection of religious beliefs and moral
convictions, including beliefs and convictions regarding marriage.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Title 10, Government Code, is amended by adding
Subtitle H to read as follows:
SUBTITLE H. PROHIBITED ADVERSE ACTIONS BY GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 2400. PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND MORAL
CONVICTIONS[/quote]

[b]PROHIBITED ADVERSE ACTIONS BY GOVERNMENT[/b]
[b]
(3) "Governmental entity" means:
(A) this state;
(B) a board, commission, council, department, or
other agency in the executive branch of state government that is
created by the state constitution or a statute, including an
institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003,
Education Code;[/b]

The law does not prevent people from protesting against an entity it doesn't agree with. It prevents the government from taking adverse actions against an entity for how it chooses to donate its money.

I think you've allowed yourself to be enveloped by propaganda on this law.

No surprise here, that's always my big issue with you. You think because you believe something, and everyone around you echos it, that it must be true.

@SumKindaMunster Yes I know what the bill says. What do YOU think [quote]It prevents the government from taking adverse actions against an entity for how it chooses to donate its money. [/quote]

means in real-world terms?

@SumKindaMunster While you are thinking of an answer to my previous question, I am going to state what it means to me, and to the people who passed this law.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chick-fil-a-law-texas-governor-signs-law-prohibiting-adverse-actions-due-to-religious-views/
[quote]The new law came about as state lawmakers sought to override an action by the San Antonio City Council in March, which voted against a Chick-fil-A restaurant at the municipal airport, citing the company's "legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior."[/quote]

So what this means is that if a local city council decided, they didn't like the religious politics of a business and didn't want to issue they a permit or license, they now are not allowed to do so.

How is not allowing a city council, whose local citizens vote into office and empower, to carry out what it believes is the wishes of its local citizenry not a problem for you?

The only reason I can come up with why anyone would be OK with this law is that they are ultra-christian and a hypocrite.

@Pherick I think it means what the laws says it means. Clearly you don't.

@Pherick And that's all propaganda Pherick. Why don't you cop to your biases and admit this upsets you because you don't like Chick Fil a because of their politics.

[quote]So what this means is that if a local city council decided, they didn't like the religious politics of a business and didn't want to issue they a permit or license, they now are not allowed to do so.[/quote]

So in your mind, it's totally fine that a city council made their own unilateral decision, based on the political views of Chik fil a, but you have a problem with the state legislature attempting to put a stop to that?

What's the difference?

@SumKindaMunster Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, of course, its OK a city council made that decision, haven't you been reading a word of what I said? In any other case where a state tried to override a local government, you would be up in arms, screaming and flailing about "no big government", etc as the right does. However for some reason, you aren't in this case, and its because your ultra-christian bias is showing.

The difference is visible to anyone who takes 10 minutes to do some research and has adequate critical thinking skills.

Have a great day.

@Pherick Wow, Pherick you really turned into a lying, disagreeable asshole didn't ya?

You didn't answer my question, you went ad hominem and dismissed me.

That's usually the sign of someone who lost an argument, doesn't want to admit it, and is running away.

Again, the question is:

[quote]So in your mind, it's totally fine that a city council made their own unilateral decision, based on the political views of Chik fil a, but you have a problem with the state legislature attempting to put a stop to that?[/quote]

@SumKindaMunster [quote]Yes, of course, its OK a city council made that decision, haven't you been reading a word of what I said? [/quote]

Dude, give it a break, you look pathetic at this point.

@Pherick Ha ha ha, not at all. Perhaps you are projecting?

Here's one of your first comments:

@Pherick [quote]The left is in no way trying to shut down a business that doesn't share our politics, atleast I should say the left is not passing laws to make that happen[/quote]

Yet later you admitted:

[quote]Yes, of course, its OK a city council made that decision(to prohibit Chik Fil a from opening at the airport)[/quote]

@SumKindaMunster The fact you can't see the difference in those two statements is very telling.

Also its VERY telling that you are editing my quotes.

What a fucktard. You get a block.

@Pherick [quote]In any other case where a state tried to override a local government, you would be up in arms, screaming and flailing about "no big government", etc as the right does. However for some reason, you aren't in this case, and its because your ultra-christian bias is showing.[/quote]

Ha ha ha, boy you sure don't know me. "ultra christian bias"??? 😂

@Pherick The fact that you are trying to claim they are the same shows your indoctrination.

"We've always been at war with Oceania" - Pherick, probably