Bluetick's Link
Now the liberals and gays have turned into a mob, shrieking that this is 'hate'. How typical. How utterly predictable.
We do have some folks who support the legislation, believing the supposed motivation that is actually supporting the freedom of some businesses to avoid being sued for not baking a properly decorated wedding cake for a gay wedding, or some other made-up scenario just as unlikely to happen.
Most of us see it as a step backwards into the south of a couple generations ago, when "separate but equal" schools and water fountains were sufficient to satisfy the need for equal treatment under the law.
By far the majority of comments I've heard are indicate that the public is generally embarrassed and disappointed by the bill, and that it WILL cost the Republicans in the next election.
I'm not a member of any gay mob, just celebrated our 50th anniversary with my decidedly feminine wife last month, and I've supported every conservative politician in almost every race since AuH2O when I was still too young to vote for him. The last several years that has meant more often voting for those "other conservatives", the Libertarians, rather than the Whigs.
But I have always and still do stand as well for the equal treatment under the law of ALL citizens, regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Freedom for me equals freedom for thee.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
One might think that the gender confused lobby might better be addressing that as a more important issue.
In another recent event, a gay soldier set up a military Chaplin by questioning his opinion on gay marriage and then reporting him for discrimination when he didn't like his answer. The Chaplin is now facing disciplinary action for adhering to the Biblical standard that marriage is between one man and one woman.
If you want to make comparisons to the deep south of the past, I think you could insert Christians as the group being persecuted in this case, and many other cases throughout our country.
Quit lying.
Other than they don't care of the erosion of there own values OR the
Squeaky wheel gets the frosting
Salagi's Link
Why doesn't the guy who owns a bakery have the same rights as others?
"That which requires an action on behalf on another cannot be a right." ......Walter Williams
Anony Mouse's Link
More and more blacks are seeing the deceit of the Democrats who have kept them on the plantation and rely upon their loyalty to retain political power. Seeing that their loyalty is taken as a given and the illegal invasion promoted as a new addition to the progressive power base, opportunity arises for the conservative viewpoint.
And when religious beliefs come under attack... (see link)
therein lies your problem
say no more, seriously
Try again, because your last post was a major FAIL!
This is the result of outcome based education, where the Finney-types walk about confused about the difference between a Constitutional republic and a democracy. Confused, they fall back on the democracy argument to support their views.
Yet when it comes to relying on the "democracy argument", it has been shown that it is a very small (but vocal)minority who gamed the system to gain super abused status where they dictate to the majority.
Finney-types are confused about the Founding Fathers and their beliefs and always find ways to take their words out of context to prove that their point of view is morally superior (when their actions always demonstrate that they have little, if any.)
When the Founding Fathers addressed religious beliefs, they promoted the idea of "freedom of religion"...NOT "freedom from religion". Little words that provide a very confusing concept for the deep thinking mind of a progressive.
To force free people to submit to their demands by abuse of our system and seek rewards for this action is reprehensible. The people of this country once had the freedom to go about their businesses without beholding to the demands of the progressives whose moral values are in direct conflict with their beliefs. Instead of forcing someone to go against their beliefs, they could just as well taken the opportunity to create a business of their own and cater to the gender-confused community. But no--they demand that one must submit--like Islam.
The gender-confused are no better than the militant Islamists that demand that the west bow to their demands (luckily at this point, they do not behead, but legally castrate).
Under Finney philosophy, a Muslim could go into any market or resturant and demand that they be able to produce halal food...even if the store/restaurant did not have that on the menu. We have seen this type of submission being forced upon schools where the school lunch program forces a Islamic food regime on ALL students, regardless of belief.
Every day we see some group aligned with the left that becomes an "offended/suppressed" special interest that demands something from the greater society.
My challenge was for you to back up your phony and false depiction of republicans hating foreigners, minorities, women et. al. (Liberal Paradise thread)
As for gays, pretty much everyone here tolerates them. The problem is, you and most gays demand we not just accept and tolerate them, but that we CELEBRATE them.
Gay Freedom Day parades aren't about wanting gay rights (which they already have), but are about celebrating sexual deviancy and perversion. It's this "In Your Face" approach that disgusts most normal people.
And before you call me a homophobe, I have the EXACT same problem with San Francisco's annual Folsom Street celebration and parade. This event is essentially the same sort of public display of the most deviant and perverted forms of human sexuality, only it's for straights as well as gays.
I don't give a crap about what turns on consenting adults. We all have our own fantasies, fetishes, etc. But KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF! Gay, straight, whatever, don't shove them down our throats and then demand we celebrate them!
X a Bazillion. That is exactly what I believe as well.
If a baker can be coerced by threat of force to violate her 1st amendment rights, how long will it be until churches are forced to perform the ceremonies?
You don't get it!
It's not about liberty, freedom and the right to choose who you want and do not want to associate with.
It's only about what THEY want and to hell with the rights of anyone who has a contrary position.
Last year I saw a case in Portland, OR where a bar/restaurant had been having a group of cross dressers come to meet once a month or whatever. The owner had experienced a significant decline in business on the day the group came. So he asked them to please go elsewhere as it was hurting him financially.
Their response was to complain to the Portland Human Rights division or whatever the hell it was called. That part of the Portland city government immediately decided against the business owner and threatened him with monstrous fines for simply asking this group to please go elsewhere.
Liberals believe if they want something, they therefore have a 'right' to it, and anyone who dares disagree be damned!
I will not say God bless you with anything but conviction for your Godless ways. Butttttttttt
God bless you with that and God bless each and everyone of the rest of you.
Hackbow. Who are the CFs of old that fit your description?
;o)
Sixby:
Thank you. The problem you have is that you have no idea what Christ like behavior When the righteousness of God proclaims that Sodomites and Sodomy are an abomination to God then how can I speak or write any differently? If you have a problem its not with Sixby but it is with God and His attitude toward Sodomy and Sodomites. Look up the word abomination. It does not get any worse than that.
God bless, Steve
(Sorry for the redundancy in my penultimate post. I have since edited.)
Sixby nice try. I do totally understand what Christ stands for and what Christians are. Understand the bible and what it says. My comment dealt exclusively with Christ like behavior or better yet lack of it
If a baker can be forced to make such a low tiered facet of a ceremony based on "civil rights" how much more so will a venue be leveraged?
In the case of coercing religious people to support a lifestyle which violates their beliefs, is a direct front on their first amendment rights. No thinking person would confuse basic human rights like those all humans are endowed, with lifestyle rights. That kind of reasoning is what will usher in NAMBLA one day.
Don't be fools.
-I agree, unfortunately. I'll also say that the infringement on religious freedom will have a backlash from heretofore middle American supporters of gay rights. People like myself.
For example, on the subject of gays in the military, I was in the Barry Goldwater camp of "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight." Now, after seeing how aggressively dogmatic and intolerant the LBGT folks are, I regret my former support.
I think the nation continues to need healing over the issue of sexual orientation but I will not extend my hand only to be thrown down and have a boot heel put to my throat.
No matter how many times you spew lefty propaganda, hate, about conservatives it will not make it true!
Now to be fair I do hate a holes who go to forums for the soul purpose of agitation!
God bless, Steve
" Finally, I'd like some real answers on this one: WHat if your child came out as gay? Would you be ok with them? Would you disown? Would you not want them to have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexuals?"
I'll answer, not that you really care, but I will give real, honest answers. No I would not be OK with one of my kids coming out as homosexual, neither would I disown them. I would still love them and I would try to make them realize they need to change their ways to be right with God. And no, I do not believe they should have the right to marry.
If one of my kids decided to shack up with someone of the opposite gender without marriage, then I would NOT be OK with that either, I would still love them and I would try to make them realize they need to change their ways to be right with God. One is just as wrong as the other and I want my kids to be right with God.
I do have cousins who are homosexual, some of them "flaming homosexuals." I have others who are my kids by virtue of having been in my classes (some of which I have known all their lives and which view me as another father), and have come out of the closet. I do not approve of their lifestyle and they know it. Again, others are living with someone they are not married to and know I disapprove of it for the same reasons. Still I love those kids, I pray for those kids, and I want them to live their lives according to God's will.
To the non believes on here that seems foolish I know and I am sorry you don't understand these things. Like it or not, I have prayed for each of you and will continue to do so. And no, I am nowhere close to perfect, never will be, but I try to live a Godly life and pray I will leave this world a better place for having been here.
Thank You sir
The plural of anecdote is not "data"; furthermore you cannot argue the original post is false because it does not represent all gays by posting a rebuttal that repeats the same assumption.
You cannot profess to love the Constitution and yet condone discrimination of anyone. You only prove yourself to be a hypocrite.
The better case for hypocrisy would be those who demand a right that does not exist to the detriment of one that does. Additonally, nothing quite says "hypocrisy" better than demanding tolerance while refusing to reciprocate the practice.
And lets play your What does a man loving another man or woman/woman have to do with you? do you fear its contagious? do you fear they'll be attracted to you? Again this proves my point that the right wing agenda is based on fear, paranoia and playing the victim.
Actually it proves that a)you can posit a false meme, b)you can insert yourself into the argument as if you were the person you're actually arguing against and c)you can conclude that you have "won" the argument against yourself (your projection onto another).
I am breathless with anticipation at your next feat of linguistic ledgerdemain....
what is the actual preoccupation with homosexuals?
Outside of yourself and young Matthew that faction seems to be remarkably under-represented here. What is your preoccupation with projection?
Finally, I'd like some real answers on this one: WHat if your child came out as gay? Would you be ok with them? Would you disown? Would you not want them to have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexuals?
Why limit your pandering to homosexuality? Why not ask about what if your child had Down's syndrome, what if your white daughter came home with a black man or vice-versa, what if you were Jewish and your daughter brought home a Gentile?
Pray tell can you point me to the section of the Constitution that references heterosexual rights? Might that be next to the section that codifies the use of firearms for "hunting"? Maybe you and DiFi should get together and compare notes, or perhaps swaps misinformed and poorly articulated positions.
because statistically speaking, some of you have gay children and you probably don't even know it.
You were so close, so close to actually making a relevant statement. If your bias and pathological need to be right at least once on this forum hadn't gotten in the way and you'd inserted the word "may" before "have" you'd have made a valid statement.
I could even have overlooked the bad form of starting a sentence with "because" if you'd have gotten that aspect of your thesis right.....
Maybe next time....
HA/KS's Link
I know many homosexuals that go to church and revere god, so your narrative of god haters is wrong.
First God is with a capitol G not a small G. Small g is your god. One you have fabricated in your mind that does not exist.
Sodomites going to church does not change the status of the individual. Jesus said you must be born again,. That which is spirit is spirit and that which is flesh is flesh, I say unto you that flesh and blood will not enter into the kingdom of God. He that is born of the spirit is like unto the wind, He listeth not where he wil.
God directs the wind and He directs those that are born again of the spirit of God,. Sodomites are committing and abomination before God and no amount of church will get them into the Kingdom of God. If they were born again then they would stop living against God and His precepts. God does not ordain nor condone homosexuality any more than He does lying, murder, theft or adultery.
PZ:You cannot profess to love the Constitution and yet condone discrimination of anyone
Steve: Sure I can , It is my constitutional right to discriminate who I associate with , who I do business with and what I agree with or do not agree with. You cannot force anyone to be your friend or to agree with you and you Sodomite friends. You have the right to be queer and abominable and I have the right to not associate with you . I also have the right to not perform services for your abominable ceremonies or to accept you as normal. You cannot force me to agree with you and if you continue in your abominations God will destroy you.
Now I will comment that I know you are not going to pay attention to anything I am saying because your mind, (what there is of it) and your heart is set against God and you are not subject to nor will be subject to either God of to His Word. Your sins have separated you from God and He considers you fodder for the fire just as He considered Sodom and Gommorah and the inhabitants fodder for the fire. Your only hope is to repent , turn from sin and wickedness and call upon God to have mercy upon you., Just like I and countless others have , God will hear you and He will forgive you and He will empower you to overcome the world and to become one with Him by His Word and by the washing of the precious blood of Jesus.
PZ:And lets play your What does a man loving another man or woman/woman have to do with you? do you fear its contagious? do you fear they'll be attracted to you? Again this proves my point that the right wing agenda is based on fear, paranoia and playing the victim.
Steve: Not fear, pity and loathing. The very though of you and your life makes my skin craw. There is nothing much in the world that is more repulsive than your wickedness and the things you do.
PZ:Ever think of that? Finally, I'd like some real answers on this one: WHat if your child came out as gay? Would you be ok with them? Would you disown? Would you not want them to have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexuals?
Steve: I would tell him or her the exact same thing I am telling you. I love everyone but I neither condone your actions , lifestyle , or attitudes. I would tell my children exactly that and tell them that I love them at the same time. As long as you are alive you can repent. But there comes a time when God Himself will send you a strong delusion and allow you to believe a lie and be damned. That is not a time you have control of and it is a very scarey thing you have chosen to defend. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.
God bless, Steve
"I don't know, but the title "Gay mobs in Indiana" just makes me laugh for some reason...8^)" X2
If I had a gay child they would still be loved as my child. But I would accept it about as well as if they were into any other fetish or had some infidelity or other such choices I don't agree with.
Someone wants to chop off their nose, so to speak, to spite their face or have an addadictomy.... that is their problem. But to call it a health issue and at the system, be it taxpayer or insurance, is wrong. If you want to call it mental health... that ship sailed a long time ago....
A person has many rights. All people do. But the right to force me to approve of their, in some cases psychotic, choices is not and should not be one of them. WRT approval they can go wizz up a rope.... depending on the operation of course....
Anony Mouse's Link
"...Opponents of the new law in Indiana clearly have no problem with a Christian business owner being forced to provide a product or service which is directly in conflict with their religious beliefs, but what if there were other religions involved? For one example, let’s say that a small family farmer has slaughtered one of his hogs but his usual butcher has either passed on or retired from business. Selecting a new butcher from the yellow pages, the farmer loads up his truck and heads down to a different shop. If that butcher turns out to be a Muslim, can he refuse to take the farmer’s business because it goes against his beliefs? This can’t be too far fetched of a story since Target has had to make accommodations for Muslim cashiers who don’t want to ring up purchases of pork products. If laws allowing for religious objections are so wrong, should the government come in and force the workers to handle and ring up the bacon? Should the Muslim butcher be sued and have his business shut down for not cutting up the hog?..."
Article addresses other issues and is worth reading.
If a baker bakes cakes for second marriages which in most cases is adultery according to the bible. Why not a same sex marriage?
- That is a salient point. The problem we have is, as a society we have very humanly ostracized and scapegoated homosexuality. Horrendous and not at all Christ-like. We have taken mere sinners and turned them into rebels.
Now, equally as bad, society is overreacting and elevating LGBT folks to an exempted class.
This fight for 1A rights is a reaping for what we have culturally sown.
I was just sitting here thinking of the laundry list of questions a Christian would have to ask a potential customer if they wanted to do business with people that were not going to keep commiting the same sins over and over. It's very long. A baker really shoudn't be doing business with gluttons either. Wonder if people that own all u can eat buffets will stop serving the obese. Or bar owners will turn away their drunkard customers. .
BTW, In my view, there is a difference in serving food and observing ceremony.
Go back and re-read what I wrote please. I would not be OK with my children practicing homosexuality, or adultery, or murder or lying (the last I have had to deal with in my kids). I would love them and do my dead-level best to help them back to God's teachings.
You did get the part about me having a great marriage correct though. At least I think so, my wife might disagree from time to time. ;)
It just amazes me when I see what preachers like Charles Worley, Peter Anderson and others say from their pulpits. Fencing homosexuals behind electric fences, beating and killing them. Reminds me of ISIS.Not saying it's the norm but it is being preached. So not wanting to bake is minor, but I can see where people get their ideas of what is an important issue.
By Steve Deace - - Monday, March 30, 2015
Let’s begin with a simple multiple choice question.
The “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” that just became law in Indiana was inspired by similar legislation passed by which of the following duos?
A) The KKK and Ronald Reagan
B) Sarah Palin and George W. Bush
C) Ted Cruz and Dick Cheney
D) Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd
E) Chuck Schumer and Bill Clinton
The answer, which will likely shock and then be ignored by most of our low-information media, is “E.”
The original RFRA was passed 20 years ago with overwhelming support by a Democratic-majority Congress, then signed into law by yet another Democrat, President Clinton. During a bi-partisan signing ceremony, Mr. Clinton said the following:
“We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties — religious freedom. Usually the signing of legislation by a president is a ministerial act, often a quiet ending to a turbulent legislative process. Today this event assumes a more majestic quality because of our ability together to affirm the historic role that people of faith have played in the history of this country, and the constitutional protections those who profess and express their faith have always demanded and cherished. The free exercise of religion has been called the first freedom, that which originally sparked the development of the full range of the Bill of Rights.
“Our Founders cared a lot about religion. And one of the reasons they worked so hard to get the First Amendment into the Bill of Rights, at the head of the class, is that they well understood what could happen to this country, how both religion and government could be perverted if there were not some space created and some protection provided. We are, after all, the oldest democracy now in history and probably the most truly multiethnic society on the face of the Earth. And I am convinced that neither one of those things would be true today had it not been for the importance of the First Amendment. And the fact that we have kept faith with it for 200 years.”
And Mr. Clinton isn’t the only Democrat president who has supported RFRA. President Obama voted for similar legislation when he was in the Illinois Legislature. In fact, 19 states have RFRA laws on the books, including liberal states like Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. No member of that trio has voted Republican in a presidential election in almost 30 years.
So why is Indiana being singled out by the tolerance mob for scorn and boycott?
Chalk that up to the religious bigots who populate much of our lamestream media these days. When you combine their secular bias with their ignorance about the issue of religious freedom, and the U.S. Constitution that protects it, you get a contrived hysteria like we are seeing now.
These three people in particular should be singled out and called out for their special kind of stupid:
Nancy Armour, USA Today
Richard Deitsch, Sports Illustrated
Keith Olbermann, ESPN
Each of them urged the NCAA to pull out of Indiana – including this weekend’s Final Four – in response to legislation that simply reasserts that the First Amendment is still law. You know, the same First Amendment that gives them the freedom to spew the total tomfoolery they call “journalism.”
For if these individuals are really serious about removing sporting events from every state that has a RFRA, it’s going to be a long list:
We’re going to need a new home for the Kentucky Derby.
New Orleans is considered by many to be the ideal city for hosting the Super Bowl, but with Louisiana having its own RFRA there will be no more French Quarter for you.
I guess ya’ll will have to stop covering Nick Saban’s top-notch Crimson Tide football program, since Alabama has one, too.
Cross popular, warm-weather locales like Arizona, Texas and Florida off the list.
Mr. Olbermann is going to have to boycott his own employer, ESPN, since their headquarters are in Bristol, Connecticut.
The Big Ten Conference said it’s reconsidering whether to keep its football championship in Indianapolis. But the Big Ten’s offices have been in Illinois for many years now, which is another state that has a RFRA.
It’s obvious some folks were so busy earning their politically correct merit badges from the Marxist Media echo chamber, they forgot to do what we used to call in this business “research.” Furthermore, in their zeal to show how they’re willing to tolerate everyone except Christians, it’s also clear they haven’t really thought through what they’re advocating for.
For example, do these same people want government to force a Jewish kosher deli owner to handle and serve non-Kosher foods? If so, they’re a bunch of anti-Semites.
Do these same people want government to force a black business owner to serve a white supremacist conference? If so, they’re a bunch of racists.
Do these same people want government to force a homosexual print shop owner to make the vile paraphernalia for the Westboro hate-mongers? If so, now they’re a bunch of homophobes, too.
By calling on organizations like the NCAA to cease doing business with the state of Indiana, these journalists are calling upon the same “freedom of association” they’re claiming doesn’t exist for Christian business owners. And while we’re on the subject of hypocrisy, I’m old enough to remember when we were promised that granting homosexuals “the freedom to marry” wouldn’t cost anyone else their freedom.
But that’s like so 2010, dude. The “right side of history” evolves fast these days. Best to cease bitterly clinging to those guns and Bibles that are weighing you down so you can keep up.
Finally, RFRA laws predate and transcend the current marriage debate. The one signed by Mr. Clinton 20 years ago is what the U.S. Supreme Court used to side with Hobby Lobby over the Obama administration last year on the question of paying for abortifacients. So by pretending RFRA laws like Indiana’s are only about exempting Christians from violating their conscience on the issue of marriage and not equally valid for other faiths/issues, these Leftist journalists are admitting they have been lying to us about their true motives all this time.
Turns out Christians were the target of their secular jihad all along. So much for diversity. If you will not conform, then you will be made to care.
These hacks only win by bullying us into silence. Call their bluff, because they don’t have an intellectual or constitutional leg to stand on.
WRT the bakery issue that seems to be the test case and poster child for the gay "cause"..... they DID NOT refuse to sell them a donut or a roll or even a cake for that matter, because they were gay. I could see that as discrimination, they may have a case. But they did not do that. I'd even bet the loving "couple" had bought other goods there and were not refused service.
They were literally asked to create and produce what they saw as pornography. To decorate that cake with what they see as a sinful act. They were asked to create something, depict something they see as sinful.
What they were told is they were not ALLOWED by the State to see it as sinful. The State in effect dictated to them their religion.
Curious... can you go to a professional artist and MAKE him create something he sees as wrong? Sue him if he refuses to do as you ask? Force a writer to write something he sees as wrong? How about an ad agency? A photographer? Can they be FORCED BY LAW to do/create whatever someone asks them to do? Because they are also a business. Perform a service or create a product in exchange for money.
What is being steamrolled over here is there is a difference, a big difference between producing a product, offering it for sale to the general public and then refusing to sell it to someone based on race, age, sex, etc...... and a business based on contracts, commissions and custom work.
Donuts and generic pastries and cakes are one thing. They are created, then offered up for sale.
When a custom decoration is ordered it changed the deal, the whole dynamic. Now you are entering into creating something not of your choosing, but of another's choosing. Creating something against your free will. The baker becomes the artist. The writer. They have the right to say "I don't want to create that, you will have to find someone else who is willing to."
There are bakeries who specialize in all kinds of custom pornographic items and would be more than happy for this work. But then these other folks could not be made an example of and be forced to accept what they believe is sinful.
They are already forced to accept it as legal. That is one thing. Law is the law.
Now they want the State to enforce it all as acceptable, force religion to accept it, tell them what they can and cannot call a sin against God. Force people to create something that goes against their beliefs. These are two separate and completely different issues.
As Joe Biden would say, "Big f'in deal..."
The proregressives just want to make a stinky over IN.
They did not refuse them donuts because they were gay. They simply refused to create that art, that image with their own hands and mind, which in their eyes is sinful.
The State told them and their religion/church, what is and is not sinful. Dictated it.
Can a church refuse to hold a gay wedding? Are you saying they have to if asked?
Why can't an artist refuse to depict what they see as sinful and wrong?
Again, huge difference between something being legal and REQUIRING all to morally approve of it.
Pot is now legal in CO. But what if you come out and publicly say it's wrong? What if a person wanted a pot plant decoration on their birthday cake? What sane person would argue they HAVE to draw the plant?
Worth reading...
Exerpts:
"...There is no principle here. The zealots are not claiming that we must be tolerant towards all -- that is a principle most could agree with.
No, they are instead claiming we must embrace the things they love, and hate -- and persecute -- the things they hate.
This is not "tolerance." This is, at best, simply the replacement of one set of bigotries and hatreds with the left's favored set of bigotries and hatreds..."
And:
"...The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage.
Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party. That’s the only way to explain the born-again opportunism of Hillary Clinton, who tweeted: "Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn’t discriminate against ppl bc of who they love."
By that standard, Mrs. Clinton discriminated against gays because she opposed gay marriage until March 2013. But now she wants to be seen as leading the new culture war against the intolerant right whose views she recently held..."
And:
"...no one on the left seems willing to ask some basic questions:
If a minority of bakers refuses services to gay weddings, what actual damage befalls gays? There are still many, many more bakers who will bake them their cakes. So what is the actual harm?
They never answer this question -- they never ask it, so they couldn't answer it -- but the actual answer would be: "The harm is finding out that someone disagrees with my Sacred Belief on gay marriage."
To which I say: Get over it, Sally. A lot of people disagree with you about a lot of things. The fact that you're hysterical about it and also quite cruel -- the way that only a weakling can be truly cruel, when he finally gets a bit of power over someone -- is not a good reason to let you beat someone around using the law as your cudgel.
What is being pursued here is not gays' right to have wedding cake. They have this, of course, and do not need the law's insistence to get it.
What is being pursued here is hardcore gay-identity crusaders' insistence that no one has the right to disagree with them on their Sacred Belief, and that the law can and should be perverted into punishing ThoughtCrimes..."
"A religious liberty bill similar to the one causing a phony uproar in Indiana this week was just passed by Arkansas lawmakers Tuesday and serves as yet another sign of the left-wing mainstream media’s waning power to intimidate and bully. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson said he is going to sign the bill, which will then offer the Faithful the same legal civil rights protections offered in 20 other states."
I do believe that the proregressive left will now see the pendulum swing the other way...the majority of Americans are tired of being shouted at and told that they must give up their moral values and accept amorality as the norm. TBVIECia has been built upon an unsound foundation...and it is beginning to crumble.
What if they think a biracial couple is morally wrong ? The bible was used as a reason for that to remain illegal.There are millions of people involved in adulterous marriages according to the bible. How many bakers refuse to make cakes for divorced couples getting remarried? You stated this had nothing to do with a cake, yes it did. If you live in a state that says you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation then you can't done deal. Don't like it too bad move or change the law.According to the state it was the same as making s wedding cake for a black couple.
Indiana passed their law and that is their right. It's going to cost them some business and maybe some will move there to.
A church should never be forced to perform a cermony that goes against their doctrine.
all invalid points
a baker bakes
a butcher butchers, except hogs
that sounds right & stuff kinda
go fix your registration or bugoff
Pop quiz: Two "couples" approach a baker and request a wedding cake.
Couple #1 is a man and a woman.
Couple #2 is two men (or two women if you prefer).
Most reasonable, thinking adults would readily agree it's easy to identify the same-sex couple.
Now, how exactly does one identify divorced individuals?
Do they have a yellow "D" on their left breast pocket?
Do they have a scarlet "A" on same?
Is there some form of identifying mark?
In theory your argument can be sold; in practicality it's a false equivalency to a degree that borders on the absurd.
As an potentially-related sidebar; have you told Pat you consider his registration policies to be discriminatory (you know, against that group of individuals obsessed with privacy) and hence are not properly registering as a matter of principle?
Inquiring minds want to know.....
jack
But more to the point, if one is wondering why Al Gore is suddenly a prophet to be followed, rather than Algore the Gorbal Warming Idiot, check your calendar.
As far as the registration thing goes if I'm banned why can I post and what did I do to get banned? I don't call names or bash people for the way they hunt.
I have used two handles on this site Bear and Bear2. Switched from bear because someone else was using it.
Charlie Peguero from Vestal NY.
If I go in to get an elk-themed cake baked for dessert at the annual Big Game Feast our club holds and the lady behind the counter turns out to be a serious anti-hunter, I will go elsewhere for two reasons.
1) I would rather not do business with someone who would like to end my way of life.
2) With every bite I would have to wonder exactly what went in that mixing bowl
I can see your point if the heterosexual couple were for example, in their 50's but then you're making a huge assumption that could blow up on you such as death of a spouse (which would not constitute adultery).
While it may not have been as absurd as my first inclination it's nowhere as obvious as a same-sex couple.
Frankly I think that was a "clutching at straws" retort.
FYI-belated apologies as it occurred to me well after the fact that your name and handle rang a bell.
Mike, no problem. I don't post as much as I once did, stuff like this has a lot to do with why. I know there been huge troll issues but thus place has changed alot.
For example.
PRICE LIST
Cake for straight wedding $200 Cake for LGBT wedding $2000
Not discriminatory because you are not refusing service,however since the baking the cake is emotionally and spiritually more difficult, the cost increases accordingly.
The free market will fix the problem. Infact, perhaps create opportunities to create jobs for LGBT bakers, who then bake cakes with an inverted price structure.
MF isn't worth responding to.
Ace's Link
By Ann Coulter:
Happy National Hate Week! Today, we’re all hating on Indiana. Who will be the left’s Emmanuel Goldstein next week?
Evidently, the sole function of the media these days is to subject the public to a steady stream of manufactured events: “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”; nuclear power kills; Lena Dunham’s rape by a college conservative at Oberlin; the “mattress girl” raped at Columbia University; Jon Stewart is funny; a fraternity gang-rape at the University of Virginia; and a law protecting religious freedom will lead to separate water fountains for gays in Indiana.
The whole country has to keep being dragged through these liberal hate campaigns, but as soon as the precipitating event turns out to be a gigantic hoax, the truth is revealed like a bedtime story being read to a child: The ending is whispered and the narrator tiptoes out of the room.
Here’s a time-saver: Whenever one of these conscience-shocking stories is promoted to front-page status by The New York Times and involves:
police brutality; the environment; a campus rape; or gays;
… you can be pretty confident it’s a hoax. As the saying goes, it didn’t happen until it’s reported by The New York Times, and not even then.
"The definition of 'liberal' is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts."
The Republicans continue to self destruct !!!!
I don't get what's so friggin' hard to understand about that concept!
Gays want to be able to live as they choose, and I agree 100% with that. In most all states they have that right. What they want is for the rest of us to LIKE and accept it it. Sorry, that ain't happening.
If someone wants to tattoo their eyelids green, shoot staples in their face and have their tongue split like a snake's then have at it. But that DOESN'T mean that others have to like it. That's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE, and it actaully IS freedom of choice as opposed to executing infants.
"Tolerance is not a one-way street: if gays are entitled to their strongly-held convictions, why aren't Christians?"
I make no demands on people that they do not wish to fulfill, I am not offended by anyone's personal beliefs or by refusal of my REQUEST (I don't make demands) based on those personal beliefs and I expect the same consideration. That's only fair ...
"impeding the free exercise of religion" It can't get much clearer, the state is not only impeding the exorcise of their religion, they are expressly defining it FOR the church. FORCING those in that church to participate in what is clearly defined as a sin, a sin has been seen as one many times longer than the US has ever existed, nobody just made it up out of thin air.
As with the bakery in their poster child case.... they are not discriminating against a person. Nor trying to take away any of their legal rights. They are doing what they can to not be associated with a sinful ACT. In their eyes the state is not only forcing them to be a part of the sin... they are openly telling the church there must be no such thing as sin.
Maybe that's the point to take away from this. In the age of leftist moral equivalency (their own religion of sorts) there is no such thing as sin. You have no soul. Constitution and it's inalienable rights be damned. There is only the state and what the state wants.
Again... the whole hissy fit is because small but high profile special interest group had their widdle feewings hurt because someone sees what they are doing as wrong, a sin. And that cannot be ALLOWED. Bunch of flippin' drama.... whatevers...
Not when they insist on the depiction of an immoral act that is against God and normality. Christians determing what is moral or immoral by what the Word of God says. The Word of God says that Sodomy is an abomination to God. That like means double immoral,. Bad bad, humongously terribly bad. Yuck.
God bless, Steve