Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I have not read through the entire bill yet, but my understanding is yes. More than 40 religious institutions worked with Congress on the bill to ensure religious freedom and it ended up being endorsed by several faiths, including the Mormon Church. So maybe there is hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 41 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I’ve enjoyed reading your thoughts over the past few days, especially in light of some of the responses you’ve gotten. It seemed as if a simple thumbs up emoji didn’t quite cover it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 12 Republicans voted for cloture on the Senate's same-sex marriage bill. It included an amendment that supposedly protected religious freedom. That amendment is insufficient. Mike Lee's amendment is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: It’s not, so they don’t. And that poorly reasoned drivel is exactly what I expected from The Federalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 41 minutes ago, B-Man said: Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 13 minutes ago, nedboy7 said: Please explain. You will have to wait until he receives his updated talking points. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Sean Davis’s tweet from couple days ago Don’t Let The Left’s Smears Over The Colorado Club Shooting Derail Efforts To Protect Kids From Gender-Bending wowza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: It’s not, so they don’t. And that poorly reasoned drivel is exactly what I expected from The Federalist. Sorry little guy, as I have explained to Billstime multiple times, that simplistic "I don't like your source" nonsense, doesn't work with adults. Posters can read it and decide on their own, despite your view from the mountaintop. 😄 1 hour ago, nedboy7 said: Don’t Let The Left’s Smears Over The Colorado Club Shooting Derail Efforts To Protect Kids From Gender-Bending wowza. Tell you what Neddy, first you explain to the board what is possibly wrong with protecting children from unnecessary mutilation. Jiminy Cricket ! . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: Jiminy Cricket ! Mom? Is that you?? Jeez and I get called old. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 1 hour ago, nedboy7 said: Please explain. Told ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Mom? Is that you?? Jeez and I get called old. @B-Man was in the grade behind Old Man River in middle school. That changes nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 16 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Mom? Is that you?? Jeez and I get called old. Well, it was in response to Neddy's "wowza". It was all that I could think of. 😆 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: @B-Man was in the grade behind Old Man River in middle school. That changes nothing. It's true. I majored in History. . . . . . . . . . . there just wasn't that much. 😂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: Well, it was in response to Neddy's "wowza". It was all that I could think of. 😆 It's true. I majored in History. . . . . . . . . . . there just wasn't that much. 😂 Oh yeah!!?? Well I'm so old I majored in theology. It was a 30 minute class. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 No, the bill won’t provide religious institutions with meaningful protections. Yes, the bill could certainly be used as a basis for the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations that don’t toe the line on gay marriage. Yes, it could also be used to deny grants, licenses, or contracts. No, weak language about preserving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not enough to prevent harm to religious liberty. And so on. The justification for the bill is just as outlandish and offensive as the argument that it presents no danger to religious Americans. In the wake of the Dobbs decision this summer, we were warned that some future Supreme Court opinion, following Justice Clarence Thomas’s logic, could overturn Obergefell and other substantive due process rulings such as Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage. The purpose of this claim, in case it isn’t bone-crushingly obvious, is to lump opponents of gay marriage in with opponents of interracial marriage, to smear them as bigots who aren’t just on the wrong side of history, but who are about to be on the receiving end of a federal government empowered to go after them. And if you think that can’t really be how proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act think about traditional-minded Americans, go ask Jack Phillips how he’s faring after winning his Supreme Court case in 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 19 minutes ago, B-Man said: No, the bill won’t provide religious institutions with meaningful protections. Yes, the bill could certainly be used as a basis for the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations that don’t toe the line on gay marriage. Yes, it could also be used to deny grants, licenses, or contracts. No, weak language about preserving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not enough to prevent harm to religious liberty. And so on. The justification for the bill is just as outlandish and offensive as the argument that it presents no danger to religious Americans. In the wake of the Dobbs decision this summer, we were warned that some future Supreme Court opinion, following Justice Clarence Thomas’s logic, could overturn Obergefell and other substantive due process rulings such as Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage. The purpose of this claim, in case it isn’t bone-crushingly obvious, is to lump opponents of gay marriage in with opponents of interracial marriage, to smear them as bigots who aren’t just on the wrong side of history, but who are about to be on the receiving end of a federal government empowered to go after them. And if you think that can’t really be how proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act think about traditional-minded Americans, go ask Jack Phillips how he’s faring after winning his Supreme Court case in 2018. New talking points downloaded without a source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 2 hours ago, BillStime said: New talking points downloaded without a source. Thanks for demonstrating that you comment without reading the articles. The clip is from the same Federalist article that we have been discussing this page. You know, the one that Goose claims is unreasoned. Hahahahahahaha. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 2 hours ago, B-Man said: Thanks for demonstrating that you comment without reading the articles. The clip is from the same Federalist article that we have been discussing this page. You know, the one that Goose claims is unreasoned. Hahahahahahaha. . Laughable - coming from the guy who over and over again gets caught only reads the headline. #winning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobills404 Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 (edited) 14 hours ago, B-Man said: Thanks for demonstrating that you comment without reading the articles. The clip is from the same Federalist article that we have been discussing this page. You know, the one that Goose claims is unreasoned. Hahahahahahaha. . All they do is post tweets, sh*tty facebook memes, and hurl personal insults. Literally never seen them post an original political opinion before. I put them on ignore and my experience on this board improved exponentially. Edit: “You’ve chosen to ignore content by BillStime” lol there they are right on cue screaming into the void, effing loser Edited November 23, 2022 by gobills404 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 3 minutes ago, gobills404 said: All they do is post tweets, sh*tty facebook memes, and hurl personal insults. Literally never seen them post an original political opinion before. I put them on ignore and my experience on this board improved exponentially. lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts