Rick Santorum Quotes WBC To Defend Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

oh Rick, you're gonna get yourself in trouble. You poor moron.

Source

I think the language they had is better language, this is acceptable language,” he explained in an interview that aired on Sunday. “It doesn’t do a lot of the things — it doesn’t really open the debate up on some of the more current issues.”

“I think the current language that the federal law is — and now Indiana is — has been held to have a pretty limited view of religious liberty — religious freedom is in the workplace,” the former Pennsylvania senator insisted. “And I think we need to look at, as religious liberty is now being pushed harder, to provide more religious protections, and that bill doesn’t do that.”

Yes, you admit it Rick, you want religious protections, protections specifically for the religious, against everybody else.

“If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up?” he asked. “Should the government — and this is really the case here — should the government force you to do that?”

No Rick, the government isn't saying "you MUST do this", they are saying "No, you cannot discriminate". There's a fundamental difference.

It's as if you were complaining because you wanted to kill a person and that pesky government told you no. Sure, a little hyperbolic, but you don't get to claim your aren't being afforded your rights, when what you want to do is actually illegal and immoral.

And this is where I just think we need some space to say let’s have some tolerance, be a two-way street.”

Rick you have it backwards. You only want tolerance for the religious, you could care less about anybody who doesn't fit your idea of membership into that class. If you were tolerant, then you'd have no problem supporting amendments that would protect minorities, LGBT etc.

But no, you want the religious to have the exclusive right to deny service to people, based on sexual orientation, or religious belief.

Not being able to do that, is one of the founding principles of America and the fact that you might run for POTUS with such a wrong and twisted view of your own nations spirit is appalling.

I hope you get eaten alive in the primaries .

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Well. We actually can and do discriminate. All of us, every day. In the food we eat, the entertainment we indulge in and who we associate with.

It is the ability to 'discriminate' that separates us from the animal world.

Best you be more specific in your posts.

The real bigotry lies with the gay activists, in this case. Threats of death and arson move past the point of rational debate and where lines should be drawn. The financial and moral support given these businesses by the nation suggest a this has gone too far.

The line made by the Christians is we will serve but we will not contribute to ceremonies which goes against our religious teachings.

It is a definite grey area and arguments can be made for both points of view from what I can see.

I'm not a Christian but we have moved from " the gov't has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" to intimidation of otherwise innocuous individuals and businesses.

The line has been drawn. Enough. This one you will lose.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well. We actually can and do discriminate. All of us, every day. In the food we eat, the entertainment we indulge in and who we associate with.

Preference is not discrimination I'm sorry. Those two things are different. I don't choose to eat the apple out of my fridge, instead of the banana because I hate the Banana. Or otherwise don't like where it came from or what it's doing with it's life.

I just wanted to eat an apple, instead of a Banana. Preference, not discrimination. I'd have to have something against the other choice for it be discrimination.

The line made by the Christians is we will serve but we will not contribute to ceremonies which goes against our religious teachings.

Then don't own a public business. Own a private members club and you can discriminate all you'd like.

It is a definite grey area and arguments can be made for both points of view from what I can see.

Sure, but one is wrong and the other one is right. If you own a public business then you have already agreed to serve EVERYBODY who isn't abusing you.

Here's the most basic reason why you cannot do that.

I pay taxes. You as a public business receive rebates from the Government for a whole host of things. There are dozens of programs that help businesses with tax payer money. So as a business, you are receiving tax payer money to operate, which means you don't get to tell any particular tax payer that you won't serve them.

I'm not a Christian but we have moved from " the gov't has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" to intimidation of otherwise innocuous individuals and businesses.

It's the other way around. Businesses want to be able to discriminate, in this case I suppose against LGBT. The government is actually telling you, that you can't do that. Because it's immoral and illegal. And as much as I don't agree with the government most of the time, they got this one right.

The line has been drawn. Enough. This one you will lose.

Probably not actually. Christians tend to loose when they try to pass Freedom of Religion laws. Like prayer in school.

As a Christian ( not you I just mean in general) you can sit there and tell me that:

but we will not contribute to ceremonies which goes against our religious teachings.

But the real reason is that you don't like gay people. You think they are sinning and that they are against your God and your teachings. That's a pretty big dislike. Which means you are actively discriminating against somebody because of Sexual Orientation.

That's illegal and immoral, doesn't matter how you cut it. Jesus would be ashamed.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Jesus would be ashamed? Ah, a Christian expert. Thank you for the clarification..

As far as 'preference' goes, that label has already been claimed by the gay community, thank you very much.

You avoid the intimidation point that has the rest of the nation supporting these businesses. Businesses, by the way, that PAY taxes, pay wages. They owe their existence to their own work, not vague gov't hand-outs.

The Gov't in Indiana passed this law. The Gov't..

What you need to understand is you are not the moral authority for the nation. It is pluralistic by it's nature and it's constitution.

A healthy portion of this nation sees their morals as senior to yours...as you do to theirs. They see they've bent over backwards multiple times and there seems no end to it. They are saying ENOUGH.

The statements by Santorum and others, resonate with the grass-roots.

My personal view on it is Constitutionally based.

Let each state decide these issues on their own, based on their views. The federal Gov't has zero business outside the 10th amendment and that was as it was intended. From socialized medicine, gay rights. EACH TO THEIR OWN.

Otherwise, this will get out of hand and the consequences will be massive.

I want to see how they act when Christians are turned away from businesses. This law is obviously an attempt to legally discriminate against nonchristian religions. I would love to see nonchristian business close their doors to all Christians to give them a taste of their own medicine.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Jesus would be ashamed? Ah, a Christian expert. Thank you for the clarification..

No reason to be sassy, but yes, IMO Jesus would certainly be ashamed of some of things Christians say about people and the laws they support.

As far as 'preference' goes, that label has already been claimed by the gay community, thank you very much.

What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't make your previous statement any more true. Preference is not the same as discrimination.

You avoid the intimidation point that has the rest of the nation supporting these businesses. Businesses, by the way, that PAY taxes, pay wages. They owe their existence to their own work, not vague gov't hand-outs.

You're right, businesses, do each deserve credit for building something for themselves, but that still doesn't give them the right to discriminate based on their own personal views.

What you need to understand is you are not the moral authority for the nation. It is pluralistic by it's nature and it's constitution.

Correct and so therefore I take stance that instead of trying to push my morality on others, I will simply expect everybody be treated the same under the law. This does not do that. This creates a barrier to that.

They see they've bent over backwards multiple times and there seems no end to it. They are saying ENOUGH.

Right, but again to my point earlier, just because you feel like, you should be able to kill people doesn't mean you're being bent over backwards because people tell you no.

My personal view on it is Constitutionally based.

You can't really do that when it comes to these specific issues. The Constitution does not account for 21st century America. That's why we had to amend the thing so many times already. It's not the perfect document people make it out to be.

The Gov't if Indiana passed this law. The Gov't..

Yes, a very religious government, passed a law 'protecting the religious' from having to deal with 'undesirables' in their businesses.

Where does the line get drawn? Do I get treatment from a local hospital as an Atheist if they don't like that? What if there's only one bakery in town?

We can't allow states to start deciding for themselves who they want to be able to discriminate against and who they don't, not when it comes to services offered from public businesses.

~Tenth

a reply to: nwtrucker

The line made by the Christians is we will serve but we will not contribute to ceremonies which goes against our religious teachings.

And there is nothing in the bible which backs up what you are saying. it just says you shouldn't be gay it says nothing about providing services to gays.

I'm not a Christian but we have moved from " the gov't has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" to intimidation of otherwise innocuous individuals and businesses.

These people are using their religion to discriminate against homosexuals. They will lose this fight because there is nothing in the bible that says anyone but God should judge a person.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower


(quote from Rick Santorum)
“If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up?” he asked. “Should the government — and this is really the case here — should the government force you to do that?”

I just hate this lame argument. Obviously he (and others) are refusing to understand what discrimination means in legal terms. If you don't want to print "God Hates Fag" on a sign, you don't have to. However, if you are willing to print "God Hates Fags" on a sign for a Christian, but not for a Muslim, THAT is discrimination. Discrimination is refusing to sell the exact same product or service to one group that you sell to everyone else.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

What is the "fundamental difference"?

Christian store owner doesn't like what a customer does and doesn't want to be involved in any way = bad

Homosexual store owner doesn't like what a customer does and doesn't want to be involved in any way = good

Perhaps I'm a little too dense to grasp the liberal logic. Break it down Barney style and tell me how it is OK for one person to deny service but not another person.

I don't think the Bible touched much on the issue of gays. The people who use the bible as an excuse to discriminate against gays is sickening. There are ten commandments. Among those commandments, there isn't any "Don't diddle your same sex flatmate "clause.

Jesus, for one, taught to love everyone. Unconditionally. He didn't say "Love everyone, but don't make cakes for those gays!"

Anyone who discriminates against gays and claims to be a good Christian is disgusting.

Sorry, not sorry.

a reply to: 200Plus

What is the "fundamental difference"?

Let me just fix your quote and it should make sense for you:

Christian store owner doesn't like what a customer does and doesn't want to be involved in any way = bad

Homosexual store owner doesn't like what a customer does and doesn't want to be involved in any way =bad

BOTH are bad.

~Tenth

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Jesus also said he wasn't here to change his Father's Laws.

Paul said he was free of God's laws at times but he was never free of Christ's laws.

People that use a 2000 year old religious text that has been translated, modified, and abridged numerous times are delusional at best. Regardless of the stance they are arguing for or against.

a reply to: 200Plus

Can you give us a real-life example of when a homosexual store owner discriminated against a customer based on their race, religion or sexual orientation? Because according to the specific state's laws, it may be found illegal. Can you give us an example of when it wasn't considered illegal?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Nope.

Because even when provided one thing would happen -

The person making the request (customer) would be called a homophobe and the whole thing would be a "set up"

We've already witnessed it haven't we?

As wrong as it is to prejudge/judge a person based on something so petty as sexuality, I think it is the right of the store owner. It's their business who they conduct business with. They shouldn't be rude or abusive and if they are they should lose their license once it's proven.

Some people simply do not want to make cakes/take photos of gay weddings.
Some people simply do not want to dry clean Klan uniforms.
Some people simply do not want to print WBC rally signs.

People went into to business to make money and perform a service. If they decide not to perform a service they lose that money. That's their business.

*as a needed caveat (because it will be used as ammunition) the above is a list of tasks different people, with different worldviews may find unsavory. I am not comparing homosexuals to the Klan or WBC.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: kaylaluv

Nope.

Uh huh. I didn't think you could. That's because the laws apply equally to everyone.

a reply to: kaylaluv

sure they do.

And Jesus loves you too

EDIT - I should apologize for my snippy reply I just get fed up and tired at times.

I am curious. What was you excuse when Abbey refused to allow Bachelorette parties and a whole host of other "gay bars" followed suit. They were in the right to "stand up for their beliefs" or some other tripe I'm sure. It was simply breaking the non-discrimination law. But, it was OK because it was the other side doing it.

originally posted by: damwel
I want to see how they act when Christians are turned away from businesses. This law is obviously an attempt to legally discriminate against nonchristian religions. I would love to see nonchristian business close their doors to all Christians to give them a taste of their own medicine.

How do you know that somebody's a Christian unless they tell you? How do you know that somebody's Gay unless they tell you?

I feel for the GOP right now... They seem NOT to know what these laws even say, and they keep scrambling to say what they think their constituents want to hear. I don't think Rick will get near the nomination anyway, so don't think there's anything to be concerned about. I'd love to hear Rand Paul's take on it...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Well. We actually can and do discriminate. All of us, every day. In the food we eat, the entertainment we indulge in and who we associate with.

It is the ability to 'discriminate' that separates us from the animal world.

You don't think animals discriminate in the food they eat, what they do for fun and who they love? You don't know animals very well, then.

The word "discriminate" is like the word "theory". There's a layman's meaning and then a legal or scientific meaning. Of course we all discriminate (animals, too) in terms of preferences. But legally, discrimination means:

Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

They may not know what they actually say in Indiana or Arkansas, but Loiusiana is pretty clear about the intentions of its bill.
Religious freedom fight is coming to Louisiana

State Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Bossier City, has filed a bill that would allow private businesses to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, should it become legal in Louisiana. The legislation would -- among other things -- allow a private company to not offer the same benefits to legally-recognized same-sex married couples as other married couples, on the basis of a religious objection.

"It would be a license to the private sector to refuse, for religious or moral reasons, to recognize same-sex marriages. It covers not just churches and religious organizations, but also the for-profit sector, and with no limit on size or diversity of ownership," said Douglas Laycock, a constitutional law and religious liberty expert at the University of Virginia who read the bill.

Laycock said the Louisiana bill would accomplish what many people thought the controversial legislation in Indiana was doing. Under pressure from the business community and sports leagues like the NCAA, both Indiana and Arkansas backed off their religious freedom legislation this week -- adding language to specify the new laws did not sanction discrimination against the gay and transgender community.

Who is this Santorum fella...


& does it hurt his manly straight feelings that he is less well know here in the UK than the monster he quoted?


God hates you... You loser of a man!