Um, actually liar, that was you. You started saying "should be" in this thread (in post #14, unprompted)
Nobody else came up with that term. You did. How many lies are you going to tell here, dumb fuck?
But don't worry, it is totally believable you're a big gambler and have all this money. LMFAO.
here comes the sick lying pyschopath himself. Every gambler has games they take horrible beats on and should have won. You would have to be a gambler to understand. You clearly don't have any money left to gamble
but I did love thread when you said if " if I bet Boise instead of ole miss I would have won". Now that was comedy gold
Of course, Pence is forced to walk back from his law legalizing discrimination. Sometimes the good guys win:^!:
[h=1]Poor, Misunderstood Mike Pence Forced to Amend Religious-Freedom Law[/h] By Jonathan Chait
Follow @jonathanchait
Indiana Governor Mike Pence announced today that he will support new legislation to amend and clarify his state’s religious-freedom law, which may or may not have opened the door to legalized business discrimination against gays. Pence was forced to revise the state’s law by a swift and overwhelming social backlash supported by a number of business leaders.
One lesson to draw from this chain of events is that Pence and his allies either overreached or blundered, and were properly forced to retreat when liberal opponents raised well-founded objections. Instead, conservatives have reached the opposite conclusion: They have been victimized by bullying social liberals, delirious with culture-war victory. “Legal historians a century from now may be mystified by how a measure that was uncontroversial for so long suddenly became a mark of shame,” writes National Review editor Rich Lowry, “They will find their answer in the Left’s drive to crush any dissent from its cultural agenda, especially on gay marriage.” Similar wounded pleas have emanated from the likes of David Brooks, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Ross Douthat, and others.
[h=2]Related Stories[/h] Why Indiana’s Religious-Freedom Law Is Backfiring Conservatives Hate the Iran Deal Because They Hate All Deals Why Is a Liberal Professor Helping Mitch McConnell Fight for Coal Companies?Conservatives are not wrong to discern a powerful and increasingly imbalanced array of cultural forces aligned against them. Nor is their desire to maintain some place of sanctuary for traditional social conservative beliefs. People who consider homosexuality unnatural, or a deviant choice, will continue to have the right to preach their beliefs in church, instruct their children as they see fit, exclude gay weddings from their church ceremonies, and so on. They are losing their ability to use the machinery of state government to express their moral disapproval of gays. The battleground centers on a relatively small middle ground of businesses, such as bakers and adoption agencies, that are involved in work related to marriage and child-rearing.
Reading the conservatives, one might get the sense that social liberals descended upon the Hoosier state at random. “The question fair-minded Americans should ask before casting the first stone is who is really being intolerant,” pleas The Wall Street Journal editorial page, employing an odd metaphor to describe a movement that is responding to the enactment of a new law. The status quo was altered here by new laws brought up by conservatives, not liberals. And despite repeated insistence by the law’s defenders that it is exactly the same as a national law that has been in place for two decades, this is very much in dispute. As Paul Waldman explains, “the Indiana law is different from other laws in its specific provisions. It not only explicitly applies the law to for-profit businesses, it also states that individual can assert their religious beliefs “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” The federal law, and most of the state laws, only concern instances where the government is forcing a person to do something or not do something; the Indiana law directly covers disputes between individuals.” Glenn Kessler and Garrett Epps further explain the differences between Indiana’s law and previous versions. The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack argues it is “not significantly different,” which, even if true, is not the same as insisting it’s no different at all.
What’s more, some of the supporters of Indiana’s religious-freedom law have wandered inconveniently off script. The American Family Association’s Micah Clark, who stood directly behind Pence at the bill’s signing ceremony, claimed that to clarify that it does not legalize discrimination would “destroy” the bill. Erick Erickson’s defense of the law builds up to a frank declaration that gay people should be denied the right to live normal lives. The (“gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction.”)
It is possible that the vagueness of the law’s terms was a simple failure of clarity. It is more likely that Pence and his allies had to carefully strike a balance between public and business opinion that won’t stand for openly discriminatory laws, and a large segment of his base that demands exactly that. Either way, the backlash against Indiana was a necessary and apparently successful expression of a newfound social consensus that gay people deserve the protections of equal citizenship.
[h=1]Poor, Misunderstood Mike Pence Forced to Amend Religious-Freedom Law[/h] By Jonathan Chait
Follow @jonathanchait
Indiana Governor Mike Pence announced today that he will support new legislation to amend and clarify his state’s religious-freedom law, which may or may not have opened the door to legalized business discrimination against gays. Pence was forced to revise the state’s law by a swift and overwhelming social backlash supported by a number of business leaders.
One lesson to draw from this chain of events is that Pence and his allies either overreached or blundered, and were properly forced to retreat when liberal opponents raised well-founded objections. Instead, conservatives have reached the opposite conclusion: They have been victimized by bullying social liberals, delirious with culture-war victory. “Legal historians a century from now may be mystified by how a measure that was uncontroversial for so long suddenly became a mark of shame,” writes National Review editor Rich Lowry, “They will find their answer in the Left’s drive to crush any dissent from its cultural agenda, especially on gay marriage.” Similar wounded pleas have emanated from the likes of David Brooks, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Ross Douthat, and others.
[h=2]Related Stories[/h] Why Indiana’s Religious-Freedom Law Is Backfiring Conservatives Hate the Iran Deal Because They Hate All Deals Why Is a Liberal Professor Helping Mitch McConnell Fight for Coal Companies?Conservatives are not wrong to discern a powerful and increasingly imbalanced array of cultural forces aligned against them. Nor is their desire to maintain some place of sanctuary for traditional social conservative beliefs. People who consider homosexuality unnatural, or a deviant choice, will continue to have the right to preach their beliefs in church, instruct their children as they see fit, exclude gay weddings from their church ceremonies, and so on. They are losing their ability to use the machinery of state government to express their moral disapproval of gays. The battleground centers on a relatively small middle ground of businesses, such as bakers and adoption agencies, that are involved in work related to marriage and child-rearing.
Reading the conservatives, one might get the sense that social liberals descended upon the Hoosier state at random. “The question fair-minded Americans should ask before casting the first stone is who is really being intolerant,” pleas The Wall Street Journal editorial page, employing an odd metaphor to describe a movement that is responding to the enactment of a new law. The status quo was altered here by new laws brought up by conservatives, not liberals. And despite repeated insistence by the law’s defenders that it is exactly the same as a national law that has been in place for two decades, this is very much in dispute. As Paul Waldman explains, “the Indiana law is different from other laws in its specific provisions. It not only explicitly applies the law to for-profit businesses, it also states that individual can assert their religious beliefs “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” The federal law, and most of the state laws, only concern instances where the government is forcing a person to do something or not do something; the Indiana law directly covers disputes between individuals.” Glenn Kessler and Garrett Epps further explain the differences between Indiana’s law and previous versions. The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack argues it is “not significantly different,” which, even if true, is not the same as insisting it’s no different at all.
What’s more, some of the supporters of Indiana’s religious-freedom law have wandered inconveniently off script. The American Family Association’s Micah Clark, who stood directly behind Pence at the bill’s signing ceremony, claimed that to clarify that it does not legalize discrimination would “destroy” the bill. Erick Erickson’s defense of the law builds up to a frank declaration that gay people should be denied the right to live normal lives. The (“gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction.”)
It is possible that the vagueness of the law’s terms was a simple failure of clarity. It is more likely that Pence and his allies had to carefully strike a balance between public and business opinion that won’t stand for openly discriminatory laws, and a large segment of his base that demands exactly that. Either way, the backlash against Indiana was a necessary and apparently successful expression of a newfound social consensus that gay people deserve the protections of equal citizenship.
A nation that was built on religious freedom is now been overrun by the nihilistic gaystapo.
Should gay caterers be forced to serve Westboro Baptist Church functions?
Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake that displays a cross with the words "Christ is Lord?"
End of argument.
People discriminate every single day. Discrimination IS freedom...so let's just repeal the First Amendment to accommodate the sodomites.
uke1:
The left doesn't care how intellectually dishonest and bankrupt their arguments are, so long as they advance their fascist, intolerant, anti-freedom, anti-American agenda, it's all good. As Harry Reid said, "Romney lost, didn't he?"
When will these spineless RINOs recognize the evil they're up against and start fighting fire with fire? What's it going to take?
Should gay caterers be forced to serve Westboro Baptist Church functions?
Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake that displays a cross with the words "Christ is Lord?"
End of argument.
People discriminate every single day. Discrimination IS freedom...so let's just repeal the First Amendment to accommodate the sodomites.
uke1:The left doesn't care how intellectually dishonest and bankrupt their arguments are, so long as they advance their fascist, intolerant, anti-freedom, anti-American agenda, it's all good. As Harry Reid said, "Romney lost, didn't he?"
When will these spineless RINOs recognize the evil they're up against and start fighting fire with fire? What's it going to take?
A nation that was built on religious freedom is now been overrun by the nihilistic gaystapo.
Should gay caterers be forced to serve Westboro Baptist Church functions?
Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake that displays a cross with the words "Christ is Lord?"
End of argument.
People discriminate every single day. Discrimination IS freedom...so let's just repeal the First Amendment to accommodate the sodomites.
The left doesn't care how intellectually dishonest and bankrupt their arguments are, so long as they advance their fascist, intolerant, anti-freedom, anti-American agenda, it's all good. As Harry Reid said, "Romney lost, didn't he?"
When will these spineless RINOs recognize the evil they're up against and start fighting fire with fire? What's it going to take?
Yep. he did. End justified the means. Where's Guesser's apology demanding tour?
Dims don't get to define everyone's beliefs...even though they are acting like it. I know the resident dims have a hard time grokking the concept that you aren't the arbiters of what is right for everyone, but you aren't.
There are some truly wonderful and caring people who believe assisting a marriage of gays (in any way) is wrong as defined by their religious beliefs. Doing so would be a sin. Forcing them to commit an act they believe to be sinful is wrong. So wrong, in fact...the founders made a very clear right out of being able to have your own beliefs.
You think it's a sin to make someone a cake for their gay wedding? Dims say tough shit...but if the situations were reversed and a gay caterer didn't want to cook for a Christian wedding, you wouldn't hear a peep. Disgusting hypocritical faggots.
I enjoy a good steak...it's probably my favorite meal. However, there are probably about a billion people who believe eating that is a sin, too. I don't have the right to travel around the globe and force them to eat steak because I think it's OK. That's pretty much the equivalent of what's going on here.
You are such a useful idiot. The only purpose you serve is clicking on advertising banners so your toxic libtarded bloggers can stay in business.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html
Section 2. All people shall be secured in the natural right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Well, there you go - damn racist, homophobic, sexist, discriminating Indiana Constitution.
Check your own state Constitution, I bet its all spelled out for you in plain English in black and white.
"his law legalizing discrimination"
ointer: Retard.
[h=1]Walmart to Arkansas gov.: Veto religious freedom law[/h]
By Katie Lobosco @KatieLobosco
'Religious Freedom' law bad business for Indiana
[h=2]Walmart's CEO is standing up against a religious freedom law that just landed on the governor's desk in Arkansas, home to the company's headquarters.[/h] It's similar to the law Indiana adopted last week, which sparked outrage from those who say it opens the door for discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Walmart (WMT) CEO Doug McMillon asked Gov. Asa Hutchinson to veto the bill, which was approved by the Arkansas House on Tuesday.
The company is headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.
"Today's passage of HB1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold," McMillon said in a statement.
It's not the only other state currently considering a religious freedom law. There are 14 other states looking at similar proposals this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
A number of big companies have spoken out against the Indiana law, including Starbucks (SBUX), Apple (AAPL, Tech30), Angie's List (ANGI), Yelp (YELP), Salesforce (CRM, Tech30), and Eli Lilly (LLY). NASCAR, as well as the NCAA, NBA, WNBA, Indiana Pacers and Indiana Fever have also expressed disappointment. And Connecticut banned all state-funded travel to Indiana over the law.
On Tuesday, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence pledged to "fix" the controversial law to clarify that it does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.
By Katie Lobosco @KatieLobosco
'Religious Freedom' law bad business for Indiana
[h=2]Walmart's CEO is standing up against a religious freedom law that just landed on the governor's desk in Arkansas, home to the company's headquarters.[/h] It's similar to the law Indiana adopted last week, which sparked outrage from those who say it opens the door for discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Walmart (WMT) CEO Doug McMillon asked Gov. Asa Hutchinson to veto the bill, which was approved by the Arkansas House on Tuesday.
The company is headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.
"Today's passage of HB1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold," McMillon said in a statement.
It's not the only other state currently considering a religious freedom law. There are 14 other states looking at similar proposals this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
A number of big companies have spoken out against the Indiana law, including Starbucks (SBUX), Apple (AAPL, Tech30), Angie's List (ANGI), Yelp (YELP), Salesforce (CRM, Tech30), and Eli Lilly (LLY). NASCAR, as well as the NCAA, NBA, WNBA, Indiana Pacers and Indiana Fever have also expressed disappointment. And Connecticut banned all state-funded travel to Indiana over the law.
On Tuesday, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence pledged to "fix" the controversial law to clarify that it does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Another idiotic J Deuce comparison, similar to Global Warming and a RB's YPC. I guess you can't expect anything different from a dolt who thinks Humans have only been on earth for about 2000 years. face)(*^%
As for Harry Reid, I can't stand him, and celebrate his leaving. But the hypocrisy of idiots like you who jump up and down for his ends justifies the means shit now about Romney, have no problem lying about the guy who won, calling him a Muslim, Kenyan, Communist, etc.
A nation that was built on religious freedom is now been overrun by the nihilistic gaystapo.
Should gay caterers be forced to serve Westboro Baptist Church functions?
Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake that displays a cross with the words "Christ is Lord?"
End of argument.
People discriminate every single day. Discrimination IS freedom...so let's just repeal the First Amendment to accommodate the sodomites.
The left doesn't care how intellectually dishonest and bankrupt their arguments are, so long as they advance their fascist, intolerant, anti-freedom, anti-American agenda, it's all good. As Harry Reid said, "Romney lost, didn't he?"
When will these spineless RINOs recognize the evil they're up against and start fighting fire with fire? What's it going to take?
Should gay caterers be forced to serve Westboro Baptist Church functions? Yes, they should, if WBC wants to use a caterer who identifies himself as gay.
Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake that displays a cross with the words "Christ is Lord?" Yes, they should if a Customer chooses to use a baker that declares himself or herself as Muslim.
You are a caterer. You are a baker. Those are your jobs. To cater and to bake.
End of argument. Except with a vile, hateful, snake like you, it never is.
