I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.
So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?
It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.
Agreed, but lots of people think they have faith, conviction, and traditional values when in the midst of committing a crime like assault. Like what about someone like the guy Qanon guy who broke into the Pizza place to save kids held against their will in the basement that didn't exist? He certainly had faith, conviction, and traditional values.
What about all the people that stormed the capitol, whacking police officers over the head, threatening to hang Pence, etc. Did they have faith, conviction, and traditional values?
You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.
Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".
Actually, I was banned for posting a characterization of Joe Biden, in a thread about Joe Biden.
Apparently, that is untrue. Your ban literally says, "
Personal attacks in the upper, did not take the hint when warned. +30 days due to attempted ban circumvention +30 days due to another attempted ban circumvention!". Last I checked Biden wasn't here to be personally attacked. So it must have been personal attacks on others.
My point being, glass houses.
A little thing called "discrimination".
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.
More people ought to be more discriminating.
That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.
You act as if you do not engage in the process yourself.
Which is a sign of cognitive dissonance.
So you think it's ok to deny someone a service or product or job based upon their gender, color, or sexual orientation?
No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.
I usually ignore worthless questions.
Fair enough. All you have to do is plead the 5th.