Really upset at the Arizona situation.....

[Ruskiegunlover]

I am just in shock that Americans are now pissing on religious freedom. I simply cannot accept that a religious person should be FORCED to make a wedding cake for someone the baker doesn't even believe in marrying. This is surely a sign of the end times to me. The bible speaks of Christians being persecuted, and we ARE being persecuted. If a business wants to open SPECIFICALLY TO MAKE WEDDING CAKES FOR THESE PEOPLE, BY ALL MEANS DO IT. But forcing people to violate their conscience is another thing entirely. Which brings me to the point: Its not about discimination at all....

Its about FORCING PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO ACCEPT THEM. They want to FORCE, legally if necessary, all Christians to abandon their beliefs. Its part of the war on Christainity....If it were about gays and lesbians being allowed to have wedding cakes, they'd have gay/lesbian wedding cake designers and makers.....No. They want the LEGAL RIGHT to walk into a Christian business and FORCE THEM to accept them. Thats what its about. And, the long term benefit is another mortal wound to organized religion in this country. The left cannot rule those who rule themselves. If Christians are FORCED AT GUN POINT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to do these things, then they start the slow and methodical process of reversing that part of the Bible. Reverse enough of the Bible, and you destroy the religion. If enough parts of it can be proven 'false' and overturned, then the whole thing will flip on its back, legs up.

Religion helps peple rule themselves. THAT they canot stand. So they destroy the nuclear family, destroys morals, embrace sexual perversion, create the welfare state, destroy religion, turn our 'rights' against themselves, control our schools to both create a new dependent class and control what is allowed into the minds of future generations......

We are fucked. And I am ready for the collapse, ready for the hell we are about to go through when their plans crystalize and everything falls in this country. As scared as I am about parts of it, I know where I am going when I die so bring it on.

[NAPOTS]

This doesn't surprise me in the least and has been going on for a while. They are trying to paint people who don't support gay activism in the same corner as racists.

[Ruskiegunlover]

They are at WAR with Christians.

[Durangokid]

The "Push Back" is getting interesting. Black Minsters are calling for Holder to be impeached.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567963/Black-pastors-demand-Eric-Holders-IMPEACHMENT-tells-state-attorneys-general-dont-defend-anti-gay-marriage-laws.html

[FunkyPertwee]

Its a violation of natural rights to force any small business to provide any unnecessary service (anything besides health care, staple foods, water, etc...) from anyone it chooses.

Regardless of any religious or gay issues.

[Kadmos]

Its a violation of natural rights to force any small business to provide any unnecessary service (anything besides health care, staple foods, water, etc...) from anyone it chooses.

Regardless of any religious or gay issues.

So...Jews no longer have to loan money to Christians? A Black tow truck driver can refuse to assist a stranded white motorist?

Sorry, but it's the law, if you want to conduct business in the US then there are certain things you cannot discriminate against.

Federally that means race, gender, religion, age, color, or national origin.

And to some degree by recent developments sexual orientation.

Plus states are able to add in whatever other protected classes they may want.

If you want a business license, if you want to run a business in the states, well that's just something you gotta deal with.

[FunkyPertwee]

So...Jews no longer have to loan money to Christians? A Black tow truck driver can refuse to assist a stranded white motorist?

Loans and tow trucks are necesary to our society and to life for an individual. Wedding cakes are not.

Stop acting like its the same thing as letting someone bleed out in the emergency room because this hospital doesn't help black people.

This type of law suit has no purpose except to create a new reason to sue people.

Imagine yourself as the baker. You want somebody lording it over you that you have to make a cake any damn time they say so or they'll have your business shut down because of law suits?

What if they request that you draw a picture of a mans anus being penetrated on the cake. Should you be forced to make that one too?

[imanaknut]

Upset, then think about obama-care versus Hobby Lobby. We don't care what your religious beliefs are, we are obama-care and you will provide what we tell you.

[Kadmos]

Loans and tow trucks are necesary to our society and to life for an individual. Wedding cakes are not.

Stop acting like its the same thing as letting someone bleed out in the emergency room because this hospital doesn't help black people.

This type of law suit has no purpose except to create a new reason to sue people.

Imagine yourself as the baker. You want somebody lording it over you that you have to make a cake any damn time they say so or they'll have your business shut down because of law suits?

What if they request that you draw a picture of a mans anus being penetrated on the cake. Should you be forced to make that one too?

Obviously a wedding cake isn't the same as bleeding out on the side of a road.

But then neither is being denied a loan or having to wait for a different tow truck.

How is it fair that, by your logic a grocer has to sell rice to a gay person, but not a doughnut...or a wedding cake?

And yes, if I was a baker I figure I would sell a cake to anyone who wanted one. So long as nothing that I found personally to be profanity was expected to be put on the cake than I don't see the issue.

I can get a baker not wanting to put "I'm going to kill you, you fucking bitch" on a cake, or swastikas, or maybe, maybe two grooms on top (the only part of this that is really possibly reasonably objectionable, not that I would have a problem with it).

But for the most part you order a cake that I will make for one person, then I will make it for another person.

[Durangokid]

The bank can deny you a loan based on how you have conducted your life. You can be denied employment based on past conduct. You can be arrested for sexual expression in public. But if you are Gay you can march on the street exhibiting all manner of indecent behavior.

[FunkyPertwee]

Obviously a wedding cake isn't the same as bleeding out on the side of a road.

But then neither is being denied a loan or having to wait for a different tow truck.

How is it fair that, by your logic a grocer has to sell rice to a gay person, but not a doughnut...or a wedding cake?

And yes, if I was a baker I figure I would sell a cake to anyone who wanted one. So long as nothing that I found personally to be profanity was expected to be put on the cake than I don't see the issue.

I can get a baker not wanting to put "I'm going to kill you, you fucking bitch" on a cake, or swastikas, or maybe, maybe two grooms on top (the only part of this that is really possibly reasonably objectionable, not that I would have a problem with it).

But for the most part you order a cake that I will make for one person, then I will make it for another person.

I would let the lawyers argue over what is or isn't "necessary". :cool1:




Personally I would say all grocers sell to all people but let more custom shops choose their customers.

Jesse James shouldn't be made to make a custom gay motorcycle if he doesn't want to, or a christian bike if he doesn't want to. But Harley Davidson dealerships should have to serve any customer. Get it?

[Durangokid]

Then how can you be denied food? The restaurant sign says "No Shirt, No Shoes" no service. That is all about appearance has nothing to do with health. You can wear a dirty shirt and have dog sh!t on shoes.

[Kadmos]

Jesse James shouldn't be made to make a custom gay motorcycle if he doesn't want to, or a christian bike if he doesn't want to. But Harley Davidson dealerships should have to serve any customer. Get it?

I agree with that notion.

Except the difference is if JJ will make a "standard bike" out of his catalog, then he has to be willing to sell it to whoever in a way that doesn't discriminate against protected classes.

Typically a wedding cake is pretty much just a fancy looking cake, you pick out the one you want from a picture catalog essentially.

No, they shouldn't be forced to make a life sized cake of people fucking (whatever the orientation (unless they want)) , but "Round cake, 3 tiers, white frosting" shouldn't go all that far against someone's sensibilities.

[Durangokid]

Who has the right in a free society to decide some one else's "Sensibilities"??

[Kadmos]

Who has the right in a free society to decide some one else's "Sensibilities"??

The law.

If you will make a round 3 tier for a Christian, then you need to do so for a Jew, or white/black, man/woman etc.

Your products aren't your religion/ social beliefs. If you are going to serve one, then you need to serve all, that's the law. We don't allow "whites only" lunch counters anymore

[Durangokid]

Can you show me where the link to these laws are that you are quoting? It seems there is void in this debate between civil rights. There are a number of states including Utah which is passing laws to protect the rights of people with differing views on this matter.

[imanaknut]

Is it possible we are entering a time just like the early 1960 when civil rights became a national issue? Back then it was color, now it is sexual orientation.

[FunkyPertwee]

Is it possible we are entering a time just like the early 1960 when civil rights became a national issue? Back then it was color, now it is sexual orientation.

Civil rights should always be a national issue.

Forcing people to bake gay themed wedding cakes is in itself a violation of the civil rights of the bake shop's owner.

[NAPOTS]

If you are a private business why shouldn't you be able to choose who you do and don't serve?

If enough people don't like it they can boycott you and run you out of business. Why does the government need to get involved at all?

[Durangokid]

I don't think the question is about rights as it was in the late 1950-1960 era race relations. There is a societal impingement that did not exist during that issue. Both sides were for the most part supporting the same religions. In this debate religion has become the point of contention.

[jet3534]

So...Jews no longer have to loan money to Christians? A Black tow truck driver can refuse to assist a stranded white motorist?

Sorry, but it's the law, if you want to conduct business in the US then there are certain things you cannot discriminate against.

Federally that means race, gender, religion, age, color, or national origin.

And to some degree by recent developments sexual orientation.

Plus states are able to add in whatever other protected classes they may want.

If you want a business license, if you want to run a business in the states, well that's just something you gotta deal with.

Should a homosexual baker be forced to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church? Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a neo nazis group? You clearly do not believe in freedom. In a free country, a business owner should be able to refuse to do business with anyone for any fucking reason. That being said, in the real world people want to make money so your scenarios are in general not going to happen. The idea of setting up more and more protected classes is a great idea if one wants to further the cause of shyster lawyers with the cost being passed on to consumers. I think the country really needs to start looking at the impact of ethinyl estradiol in the food and water. Hint - this may have something to do with the growth of the gay population and also with obesity. A final question for you - why would anyone in this country want to start a small business in the current climate of government harassment.

Gotta add one more questions. To you and other libs is gay the new black? I think the answer is yes, which is total bullshit since gays are not being attacked by police dogs, lynched, blasted off the street with water cannon, forced to ride in the back of the bus or prevented from drinking at public water fountains.

Next step for the gay mafia - recruitment in elementary schools.

[Kadmos]

Should a homosexual baker be forced to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church?

Yes.

It is against the law to discriminate someone by their religious affiliation.


Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a neo nazis group?

No.

It is not against the law to discriminate against a non-protected class.



You clearly do not believe in freedom.

I do believe in freedom, but I also believe in equality. It is poor public policy to allow discrimination based on certain things.

Right now those things are race, religion, color, age, gender, physical disability.

Sexual orientation is rapidly becoming another protected class



In a free country, a business owner should be able to refuse to do business with anyone for any fucking reason.


And except for a few protected things, they are.

You can say "Hey you, the dirty fucker, get out, I don't like you personally, because you are gross, greasy, ugly, and smell bad. We aren't going to serve you here"

But you cannot say "Sorry ma'am, we don't serve Chinese people here, you have to leave"



A final question for you - why would anyone in this country want to start a small business in the current climate of government harassment.


A person can make good money with the right business, and have a nice life.



Gotta add one more questions. To you and other libs is gay the new black?

Yes.

Just like black was the new Jewish, Irish, Catholic, or German.

When you see a group of people being treated unfairly you can either try to defend them, try to oppress them, or sit back and do nothing.

Given my background, I know the importance of standing up.

My parents stood up and marched alongside blacks during the civil rights movement

I'm honored to stand up and defend gays when I see them treated unfairly.

To me, that's the real American way, I will stand up for pretty much anyone being unfairly discriminated against, whether they be black, white, Christian, Muslim, male, female, etc.

[Durangokid]

Then you will join the Protestant groups who's 2,000 year old tradition of marriage is being changed by secular laws?

[Kadmos]

Then you will join the Protestant groups who's 2,000 year old tradition of marriage is being changed by secular laws?

I'll defend their 1st amendment right to be homophobic.

But I won't defend their right to actively discriminate against protected classes of people.

A neo-nazi group is free to say or publish whatever they want, but if one of their employees decides to convert to Judaism, they aren't allowed to fire that employee just because they are Jewish.

[l921428x]

I'll defend their 1st amendment right to be homophobic.

But I won't defend their right to actively discriminate against protected classes of people.

A neo-nazi group is free to say or publish whatever they want, but if one of their employees decides to convert to Judaism, they aren't allowed to fire that employee just because they are Jewish.

the bakery offered to sell the people a standard wedding cake but the homosexuals said no we want this. well I am uncomfortable with this said the baker. law suit.
same thing with the florists.
if it works one way why not the other?

tell me the difference in this?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/weho-bar-to-ban-lawmakers-who-support-anti-gay-legislation/

[ltorlo64]

Maybe instead of arguing about what the MSM would like us to believe the bill says, we should discuss what is actually in the bill in question. Two very different things.


By Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter

February 24, 2014|2:42 pm

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.

Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:

Rest at the link. http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/

[Schuetzenman]

"Protected Classes .... Protected Classes"! We don't need no stinking Protected Classes! The notion that somebody is extra special and above normal law is BULLSHIT!

[Ruskiegunlover]

Equality is a bullshit word made up by evil, disgusting leftists to puch their agenda? What is equality? Can I sue the NAACP because they won't elect me as their next president as a white man? Equality? You are full of shit kadsocialist. But I also must say unlike you I have MORALITY and a CONSCIENCE in that I would never ask the naacp to elect me. I don't really respect their socialist agenda, think its bad for our country, but I do NOT FIT THEIR BELIEFS AND AGENDA. SO I GIVE THEM THE FREEDOM TO PRACTICE THEM. FUCK EM. THATS FREEDOM. THATS EQUALITY.

FREEDOM? EQUALITY? What about the United White College Fund? Oh, shit, sorry, meant the United Negro College Fund? They can deny people scholorships DUE ENTIRELY TO RACE. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO....How is that freedom? Oh wait, you say I can get a scholorship from any other offering? EXACTLY YOU DUMB SHIT! If some 'alternative lifestyle' sicko wants a cake, he can go get it from another store! But, it doesn't fit the leftist socialist agenda, so they have to FORCE Christians to shit on their beliefs or give up their businesses. It gets me so angry, where I see this country going. We DESERVE to collapse. I am beginning to look forward to it, as I see it as a time of rebirth more than anything. They have run our country into the ground, but we haven't hit yet. ALMOST.....

Should little girls be allowed to have 'girls only' clubs? Or boys?

[Ruskiegunlover]

Can we even HAVE scholorships anymore? What about this....in 5-10 years, we'll have gay/lesbian scholorships for college. Can they deny me a scholorship as a straight man? THATS denying me something because of what I am, is it not? But thats somehow OK....?? Wait, though, it goes further. Can I demand a womens scholorship? As a man? Isn't that discimination? Shit, wrap your head around it....Isn't it disciminatory to deny college money to people who DIDN'T make straight A's in high school? Shouldn't THEY be given equal consideration? You just pissed and moaned about 'equality' kadsocialist....How is it 'equality' that a scholorship board totally dismisses an entire class of students because they had 3.0's instead of 4.0's? THATS discimination.

Equality? Its a bullshit socialist word. GYS THIS IS NOT ABOUT EQUALITY OR DISCRIMINATION. ITS ABOUT DESTROYING REIGION, AND ONE OF THE LAST BASTIONS OF THE RIGHT: CHURCH. Its about FORCING Christians to admit that the bibe is wrong, which just releases a torrent of other issues the left has with it. Then, they've undermined it. THATS what its about. FORCING Christians to accept imorality. God help us, the book of reveleations discusses this kind of stuff.

[Integratedj]

First off, in Arizona being gay does not make you part of the special protected class of mongrels we must serve by law like the rest of the "more equal than whitey" groups. If you need such laws, you are not equal.
This law didn't need to be written at all as current law on Arizona books makes it perfectly acceptable to deny service to overbearing fag pushers. Yes they have the right to sue for denial, but everyone has the right to sue for just about everything. What they don't have is the right to dictate to a private business how they run things.
Who owns the business, you who do all the work and take all the risk? Or the government? That is what this bill is really about.

Also, for a poof to force a place to cater to him against their religious beliefs is just as bad or worse than discriminating against some one just because they fuck the poop shoot.

[El Jefe]

Queer is the new Black.

The real question is this; once the media and the left run this bit of nonsense into the ground, whats next? I think most of us will live to see things championed as "normal" that you wouldn't today think possible.

Also, why can't some people get it through their thick skulls that race and sexual orientation are two very different things and cannot and should not be equated? Doing so reeks of an agenda that has nothing to do with the cause at hand.

[jet3534]

Queer is the new Black.

The real question is this; once the media and the left run this bit of nonsense into the ground, whats next? I think most of us will live to see things championed as "normal" that you wouldn't today think possible.

Also, why can't some people get it through their thick skulls that race and sexual orientation are two very different things and cannot and should not be equated? Doing so reeks of an agenda that has nothing to do with the cause at hand.

What's next is mandated homosexual training in elementary schools.

[Durangokid]

Actually yes. One only needs to read the history of Pre-Hellenistic Greece. Alexander the Great was a bisexual his most elite troops were made up of only homosexuals. The Homosexuals became a special class of males. They eventually demanded sex between adult males and young males.
Their was a set of official government rules to regulate this practice. The rules for adult male sex with children was called the rules of "Pedophilia".

[l921428x]

Today around here it's called NAMBLA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

[Pat Garrett]

I get upset about people referring to queers as "Gay" people.

"Gay" people are those that are light hearted, happy, outgoing and enjoying life. The exact opposite of queers.

When they can put two bulls in a corral and those bulls produce a calf, I'll get on the bandwagon.

[Durangokid]

Very well put Pat G.

[l921428x]

Gay means happy
Queer means odd
Homosexual means same sex.
Even the homosexuals differentiate in activity Gay = boys, Lesbian = girls and a lot of them would fight each other.

[imanaknut]

Don we now our gay apparel, fa la la... So much for that Christmas carol... :smiley31:

[Durangokid]

Why is a homosexual gay? And a christian is a Homophobic? Just because you disagree with something does not mean you fear it. Homosexuals condemn religious teachings. Why aren't they called Bibleophobic?

[Cypher]

No matter what the issue, gun rights, unfair taxes, loss of privacy unless the American people seriously put their foots down and stop it in it's tracks they will eventually win and push it through, it's just a matter of time. We have to resist harder than they push.


This doesn't surprise me in the least and has been going on for a while. They are trying to paint people who don't support gay activism in the same corner as racists.

Typical liberal strategy, when they can't win an argument on facts they have to resort to cheap manipulative tactics, which is about 99% of the time. "Obama is a socialist" - YOU RACIST etc.

[jet3534]

I'll defend their 1st amendment right to be homophobic....


What you and the other libs don't seem to understand is people don't suffer from an irrational fear of homosexuals (homophobia) -- rather they believe that homosexuals are immoral. In addition people find them disgusting based on hard wired logic which is the result of human evolution over a long period of time.

[Warlord]

Equality is a bullshit word made up by evil, disgusting leftists to puch their agenda? What is equality? Can I sue the NAACP because they won't elect me as their next president as a white man? Equality? You are full of shit kadsocialist. But I also must say unlike you I have MORALITY and a CONSCIENCE in that I would never ask the naacp to elect me. I don't really respect their socialist agenda, think its bad for our country, but I do NOT FIT THEIR BELIEFS AND AGENDA. SO I GIVE THEM THE FREEDOM TO PRACTICE THEM. FUCK EM. THATS FREEDOM. THATS EQUALITY.

FREEDOM? EQUALITY? What about the United White College Fund? Oh, shit, sorry, meant the United Negro College Fund? They can deny people scholorships DUE ENTIRELY TO RACE. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO....How is that freedom? Oh wait, you say I can get a scholorship from any other offering? EXACTLY YOU DUMB SHIT! If some 'alternative lifestyle' sicko wants a cake, he can go get it from another store! But, it doesn't fit the leftist socialist agenda, so they have to FORCE Christians to shit on their beliefs or give up their businesses. It gets me so angry, where I see this country going. We DESERVE to collapse. I am beginning to look forward to it, as I see it as a time of rebirth more than anything. They have run our country into the ground, but we haven't hit yet. ALMOST.....

Should little girls be allowed to have 'girls only' clubs? Or boys?


Can we even HAVE scholorships anymore? What about this....in 5-10 years, we'll have gay/lesbian scholorships for college. Can they deny me a scholorship as a straight man? THATS denying me something because of what I am, is it not? But thats somehow OK....?? Wait, though, it goes further. Can I demand a womens scholorship? As a man? Isn't that discimination? Shit, wrap your head around it....Isn't it disciminatory to deny college money to people who DIDN'T make straight A's in high school? Shouldn't THEY be given equal consideration? You just pissed and moaned about 'equality' kadsocialist....How is it 'equality' that a scholorship board totally dismisses an entire class of students because they had 3.0's instead of 4.0's? THATS discimination.

Equality? Its a bullshit socialist word. GYS THIS IS NOT ABOUT EQUALITY OR DISCRIMINATION. ITS ABOUT DESTROYING REIGION, AND ONE OF THE LAST BASTIONS OF THE RIGHT: CHURCH. Its about FORCING Christians to admit that the bibe is wrong, which just releases a torrent of other issues the left has with it. Then, they've undermined it. THATS what its about. FORCING Christians to accept imorality. God help us, the book of reveleations discusses this kind of stuff.

Ruskiegunlover I'm with you 100%. You got it right on the money, the time to hit the reset button is drawing near and can't come soon enough.


I get upset about people referring to queers as "Gay" people.

"Gay" people are those that are light hearted, happy, outgoing and enjoying life. The exact opposite of queers.

When they can put two bulls in a corral and those bulls produce a calf, I'll get on the bandwagon.

+1000 Exactly! God made man and woman to procreate, this can not be done by two of the same sex. It is also said in the Bible no man shall lay with another man. I don't care how people try to justify this a new class or race of people. It's a mental disorder just like liberalism. In the end it is against the law of the Lord and when there time comes they will have to answer to him. :evil-bbq:

[Pat Garrett]

No matter what the issue, gun rights, unfair taxes, loss of privacy unless the American people seriously put their foots down and stop it in it's tracks they will eventually win and push it through, it's just a matter of time. We have to resist harder than they push.



Typical liberal strategy, when they can't win an argument on facts they have to resort to cheap manipulative tactics, which is about 99% of the time. "Obama is a socialist" - YOU RACIST etc.

The American people, by and large don't care. Give Joe Lunchbox a beer and a basketball game on TV and he's happy. Joe and Jane Lunchbox are one helluva lot more interested in who Justin Bieber's screwing than who Al Queda's killing.

Let's face it, most Americans today don't give a shit about anything but themselves. Assad's massacring innocents?? Hell, not my problem! Castro's commies have taken over Venezuela and Ecuador?? Who gives a shit! How does that effect the price of beer and weed. One of your neighbors is screwing his GF AND her brother?? That's his business. Your kid's school teacher is a pedophile? who cares? (as long as he's not molesting MY kid.)

Anybody remember the Roman Empire???

[l921428x]

Don we now our gay apparel, fa la la... So much for that Christmas carol... :smiley31:

We'll have a gay ole time. So much for the Flintstones theme.

[imanaknut]

Can we even HAVE scholorships anymore? What about this....in 5-10 years, we'll have gay/lesbian scholorships for college. Can they deny me a scholorship as a straight man? THATS denying me something because of what I am, is it not? But thats somehow OK....?? Wait, though, it goes further. Can I demand a womens scholorship? As a man? Isn't that discimination? Shit, wrap your head around it....Isn't it disciminatory to deny college money to people who DIDN'T make straight A's in high school? Shouldn't THEY be given equal consideration? You just pissed and moaned about 'equality' kadsocialist....How is it 'equality' that a scholorship board totally dismisses an entire class of students because they had 3.0's instead of 4.0's? THATS discimination.

Equality? Its a bullshit socialist word. GYS THIS IS NOT ABOUT EQUALITY OR DISCRIMINATION. ITS ABOUT DESTROYING REIGION, AND ONE OF THE LAST BASTIONS OF THE RIGHT: CHURCH. Its about FORCING Christians to admit that the bibe is wrong, which just releases a torrent of other issues the left has with it. Then, they've undermined it. THATS what its about. FORCING Christians to accept imorality. God help us, the book of reveleations discusses this kind of stuff.

Just to make a very good statement even better, the Book is Revelation. It is singular.

What you say is so correct, and so scary. Being the silly optimist, I still have faith that we can turn this country around and regain the freedom that was made when the United States of America was set up by a religious group with specific religious beliefs on which they formed the supreme law of the land.

[Gunreference1]

The decision from the governor.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/index.html

Steve

[jet3534]

The decision from the governor.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/index.html

Steve

One has to wonder why the Republican party would pass legislation that would be vetoed by their own Governor. We keep seeing these fuck ups over and over. It is scary to see the current power of the queer mafia.

[mrkalashnikov]

Upset about Arizona? Try moving to Illinois. ;)

[Durangokid]

Jan Brewer is dead in the water. She is yielding to 5% of the population. They are paper perverts. The Duck Dynasty kicked their butts and they ran for their holes. Ya, I know it was intended.

[LAGC]

The decision from the governor.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/index.html

To be fair, she was under a lot of pressure from the business community which were afraid of boycotts should she have signed it into law. I doubt she would have caved if it were only the LGBT community upset with it, but supposedly several thousand prospective jobs were already lost once the bill passed the legislature, so she had to do damage control.

Not to worry though, sexual orientation is STILL not a protected class in Arizona. That bill would have only reenforced the status quo. So businesses can discriminate all they want, although like others have pointed out above, I doubt many will, simply because its bad for business. "Money talks" and all that...

[Kadmos]

GYS THIS IS NOT ABOUT EQUALITY OR DISCRIMINATION. ITS ABOUT DESTROYING REIGION, AND ONE OF THE LAST BASTIONS OF THE RIGHT: CHURCH. Its about FORCING Christians to admit that the bibe is wrong, which just releases a torrent of other issues the left has with it. Then, they've undermined it. THATS what its about. FORCING Christians to accept imorality. God help us, the book of reveleations discusses this kind of stuff.

Just to be clear, you think guys are out there taking it up the ass just to undermine Christianity?

When you go out and have a ham sandwich or some bacon, are you doing it just to undermine Jews?


It might be possible that you are overestimating the influence of your religion in other people's lives.

If you go out and eat bacon, I assure you, it doesn't make me less of a Jew.

If two people of the same sex get married, how does this affect your ability to be a Christian?

[Pat Garrett]

If two people of the same sex get married, how does this affect your ability to be a Christian?


I believe the term is "ABOMINATION!"

And, IIRC, it's referenced in The Torah? (a couple of times, in fact.)

[gpwasr10]

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23800000/Help-we-re-being-oppressed-atheism-23887187-350-355.png

Seriously though, I am not a fan of anyone being forced to sell items to someone they don't want to do business with anymore than I am a fan of being forced to buy something from a seller that I do not want. I do not think it should be mandated by law. If these people don't want your money then go someplace else to buy it.

Personally, I only give a fuck about green.

[jet3534]

Just to be clear, you think guys are out there taking it up the ass just to undermine Christianity?

When you go out and have a ham sandwich or some bacon, are you doing it just to undermine Jews?


It might be possible that you are overestimating the influence of your religion in other people's lives.

If you go out and eat bacon, I assure you, it doesn't make me less of a Jew.

If two people of the same sex get married, how does this affect your ability to be a Christian?

It is not "taking it up the ass" that undermines Christianity. It is forcing Christians to do business with homosexuals that undermines Christianity. Let's be honest. Most of us do not even want to be forced to watch two homosexuals (at least two dudes) swapping spit, yet if one is a professional photographer you will now be forced to do so or have your business shut down. Considering what goes on at public "pride" events there is no telling what a photographer would witness at private homosexual events.

The other thing that undermines Christianity is the interpretation of scripture by so called religious authorities to now conform to homosexual practices. For example, the story of Sodom per Wikopedia (and others) is not about a mob of queers wanting to gang rape two angels. Rather, it is now about "the cruelty and lack of hospitality of the inhabitants of Sodom to the stranger."

[Kadmos]

I believe the term is "ABOMINATION!"

And, IIRC, it's referenced in The Torah? (a couple of times, in fact.)


Ever offer a lady your coat?



A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.


And because something is an abomination to the lord, or to you personally...how does someone else doing something, in a way that hurts no one, have any effect on you?

I saw a rather ugly pink car, I would call it an abomination...but it didn't change the color of my car. Nor did it alter my faith in god. Nor did it alter my faith in this country.

[FunkyPertwee]

Ever offer a lady your coat?




And because something is an abomination to the lord, or to you personally...how does someone else doing something, in a way that hurts no one, have any effect on you?

I saw a rather ugly pink car, I would call it an abomination...but it didn't change the color of my car. Nor did it alter my faith in god. Nor did it alter my faith in this country.

Some of our Christian board members take the position that allowing somebody else to commit an evil act, even a "victimless" sin, is the same as sinning themselves and that it puts them in danger of receiving the Lord's wraith. Because the Lord's wraith would have a negative impact on our country's success, preventing others from sinning has now become a responsibility of the state. I could be wrong, but this is the reasoning that I've been able to ascertain.

I personally disagree and find this outlook to be in contradiction with libertarianism and the founding principals of our country.

An example of this is rural South Carolina. Even though the conservatives here are ultra pro-gun, restaraunt carry had a hard time passing in SC because of pro-gun conservatives who thought it was their responsibility to do anything in their power to prevent as many people as possible from entering an establishment that serves alcohol.

[Kadmos]

Some of our Christian board members take the position that allowing somebody else to commit an evil act, even a "victimless" sin, that they are themselves sinning and are in danger of receiving the Lord's wraith. Because the Lord's wraith would have a negative impact on our country's success, preventing others from sinning has now become a responsibility of the state.

I personally disagree and find this outlook to be in contradiction with libertarianism and the founding principals of our country.

An example of this is rural South Carolina. Even though the conservatives here are ultra pro-gun, restaraunt carry had a hard time passing in SC because of pro-gun conservatives who thought it was their responsibility to do anything in their power to prevent as many people as possible from entering an establishment that serves alcohol.

I get that's what's going on. But these people really need to mind their own business and stop trying to trample on the rights of other people.

Basically they are asking for a country run by religious zealotry and intolerance, what most people came to America to escape from. How they don't see that it's essentially the same things done in Muslim countries is beyond me.

[FunkyPertwee]

I get that's what's going on. But these people really need to mind their own business and stop trying to trample on the rights of other people.

Basically they are asking for a country run by religious zealotry and intolerance, what most people came to America to escape from. How they don't see that it's essentially the same things done in Muslim countries is beyond me.

Don't act so high and mighty.

You don't seem to have any problems violating rights as long as its in the name of your causes.

[Krupski]

The "Push Back" is getting interesting. Black Minsters are calling for Holder to be impeached.

Fuckin' racists.

[Kadmos]

Don't act so high and mighty.

You don't seem to have any problems violating rights as long as its in the name of your causes.

And who's rights is it that I am supposedly violating?

[FunkyPertwee]

And who's rights is it that I am supposedly violating?

In this instance its the bakery.

[Krupski]

So...Jews no longer have to loan money to Christians?

HAVE to loan? Are you kidding? Usury make the Jewish world go 'round. You guys will never stop loaning us stupid Goy money. It's WAY too profitable.

[Krupski]

The law.

Be careful how vigorously you defend "the law".

Don't forget what "the law" was in 1940's Germany.......

[Krupski]

Civil rights should always be a national issue.

Forcing people to bake gay themed wedding cakes is in itself a violation of the civil rights of the bake shop's owner.

What if some sicko skinheads wanted a cake decorated with a swastika?

[FunkyPertwee]

What if some sicko skinheads wanted a cake decorated with a swastika?

Then the baker should be able to decide whether or not he wants to do business with that person.

That was my whole point. I'm not sure you got that.

[Krupski]

It is not against the law to discriminate against a non-protected class.

Therein lies the entire problem with America (aside from Obama and the sickos who elected him).

[FunkyPertwee]

What if some sicko skinheads wanted a cake decorated with a swastika?

I would actually be stoked if I got a swastika cake for my birthday.

Because of my interest in the history of Nazi Germany. One decorated with an AK and hammer and sickle would rock too.

(I'm not a nazi or racist or commie FYI)

[FunkyPertwee]

What if some sicko skinheads wanted a cake decorated with a swastika?

Happy Birthday Krupski. ;)


http://25.media.tumblr.com/GzxVpstFwoz9ov4o95snXtgqo1_500.jpg

[Krupski]

Then the baker should be able to decide whether or not he wants to do business with that person.

That was my whole point. I'm not sure you got that.

I got your point. I was supporting it with my point (or at least that was my intent).

[FunkyPertwee]

Oh well.

Enjoy the Nazi cake I posted for you.

[Krupski]

Happy Birthday Krupski. ;)


http://25.media.tumblr.com/GzxVpstFwoz9ov4o95snXtgqo1_500.jpg

Har har.


"For our leader's birthday" (actually I think I see an "E" after "tag" which would make it birth DAYS). ?

[Krupski]

Oh well.

Enjoy the Nazi cake I posted for you.

Chocolate cake. My favorite! :)

[Kadmos]

In this instance its the bakery.

And how is the bakers rights violated? The same cake he makes for Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Men, Women...he may also have to make for gays.

So what?

Does it mean he can no longer worship god, attend a mass, etc.

All it means is that if you are willing to do a public service for one group of people you have to be willing to do it for another.

This has nothing to do with his 1st amendment right to religious freedom.

What it does clash with is his ability to run a business however he sees fit. Which is not a not a matter of his civil rights. The state can shut down a business for a myriad of perfectly acceptable reasons

[gpwasr10]

And how is the bakers rights violated? The same cake he makes for Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Men, Women...he may also have to make for gays.

So what?

Does it mean he can no longer worship god, attend a mass, etc.

All it means is that if you are willing to do a public service for one group of people you have to be willing to do it for another.

This has nothing to do with his 1st amendment right to religious freedom.

What it does clash with is his ability to run a business however he sees fit. Which is not a not a matter of his civil rights. The state can shut down a business for a myriad of perfectly acceptable reasons

I think the man should be left to his hate, and without the money to make said cake. Hell he will probably be stirring the batter with his crank and hawking loogies in the frosting the whole time.

[FunkyPertwee]

And how is the bakers rights violated? The same cake he makes for Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Men, Women...he may also have to make for gays.

So what?

Does it mean he can no longer worship god, attend a mass, etc.

All it means is that if you are willing to do a public service for one group of people you have to be willing to do it for another.

This has nothing to do with his 1st amendment right to religious freedom.

What it does clash with is his ability to run a business however he sees fit. Which is not a not a matter of his civil rights. The state can shut down a business for a myriad of perfectly acceptable reasons

Your using government force to compel a man to work involuntarily.

Explain to me what exactly is incorrect about this statement, and then please refrain from acting like a champion of human liberty until you come back and tell us that you honestly hold the preservation of natural liberties as your highest priority.

[Kadmos]

Be careful how vigorously you defend "the law".

Don't forget what "the law" was in 1940's Germany.......

Obviously there are good laws, and there are bad laws.

I'm against this one because it is a bad law. In fact it's just the type of law that you might find in Nazi Germany, a bigoted discriminatory one.

[Kadmos]

Your using government force to compel a man to work involuntarily.

Absolutely not.

He can work voluntarily or he can choose not to work. What he cannot do is choose not to work for a protected class, while choosing to work for a non-protected class.

If he is unwilling to do that work for protected classes, then he shouldn't be allowed to continue to run his business in that manner.

He can either adapt, or he can shut down. That is completely his choice.

If the law changes in such a way that gays are a protected class, then he can no more refuse them service than he could a black, a Jew, etc.



Explain to me what exactly is incorrect about this statement, and then please refrain from acting like a champion of human liberty until you come back and tell us that you honestly hold the preservation of natural liberties as your highest priority.

I don't believe in "natural" liberties at all. I believe in equality under the law. Individual liberties under the law. These are some of my highest priorities.

But if your profession conflicts with your religious sentiments, in your eyes, then you may find yourself in need of making a personal assessment of what is more important to you.

Nobody forces me to raise pigs for a living, nobody forces someone to bake cakes.

[gpwasr10]

Obviously there are good laws, and there are bad laws.

I'm against this one because it is a bad law. In fact it's just the type of law that you might find in Nazi Germany, a bigoted discriminatory one. But Dude... Wouldn’t you rather "know" someone hated you BEFORE you had them make you food? I know a guy who worked at Taco Bell back in the 90's, he shit in the beans to spite an old teacher of his who had come in for a late burrito run. And this was a simple childish hate, not a religious fueled old school zeal that saw young girls burned ALIVE at stakes.

The second that baker saw that he had to put two dudes on his creation… in the batter his schwantz would go.

[FunkyPertwee]

He can either adapt, or he can shut down.

That right there is your civil rights violation.

Shutting down somebody's business is a violation of their property rights. Until that person violates the rights of another, they cannot have their own rights violated. Otherwise, you are committing a civil rights violation.

[Kadmos]

That right there is your civil rights violation.

Shutting down somebody's business is a violation of their property rights. Until that person violates the rights of another, they cannot have their own rights violated. Otherwise, you are committing a civil rights violation.

Baloney.

A business can be shut down for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with civil rights, or of course for civil rights violations.

Serve tainted meat, get shut down.
Rip off customers, get shut down.
Sell prohibited items, or certain items to minors, get shut down.
Refuse service to protected classes, get shut down.

A business is a public entity, allowed to exist because it serves a public need. If you can't run it in accordance with public laws...you get shut down.

[FunkyPertwee]

A business is a public entity, allowed to exist because it serves a public need.


Thats sounds pretty socialist.




If you can't run it in accordance with public laws...you get shut down.

I have a greater in interest in protecting natural laws against government intrusion than protecting public law from the rights of an individual.

[Kadmos]

Thats sounds pretty socialist.

I'm sure, to you, it probably does.




I have a greater in interest in protecting natural laws against government intrusion than protecting public law from the rights of an individual.

And you are welcome to your opinion.

But just so I have this clear in my head...you don't mind if a business puts up a "No blacks allowed", "No White's allowed", or "No Christians allowed" type signs?

You don't think that is bad public policy that could lead to problems (notwithstanding the whole morally repugnant issue)?

[FunkyPertwee]

I'm sure, to you, it probably does.





And you are welcome to your opinion.

But just so I have this clear in my head...you don't mind if a business puts up a "No blacks allowed", "No White's allowed", or "No Christians allowed" type signs?

You don't think that is bad public policy that could lead to problems (notwithstanding the whole morally repugnant issue)?

I would mind that terribly. I would boycott that business and help in the protest against it. If the people living in my town began to assault the local black people (which would be like opposite day in 2014), I would support the army forcing them to stop.

This isn't 1865, or 1955, and the baker isn't lynching anybody, and he isn't denying food to a starving black man with money to pay for it.

You define rights differently than me. Thats it, get over it. NOT doing something will never be a rights violation to me. If it were, than that would sugeest the superiority of positive human rights over negative ones, which is completely opposite to my beliefs.

I will never believe that the baker is violating anyone's rights, and I'm not going to no matter how you explain it. I hold the business owners right to choose who he serves over the state's right to regulate business.

And NO, I don't support doctor's choosing to allow black people to bleed out because they only want to serve whites. Get over yourself already.

Now, I have shit to go work on.

[l921428x]

That is not what was going Kadmos.

[Kadmos]

NOT doing something will never be a rights violation to me.

And NO, I don't support doctor's choosing to allow black people to bleed out because they only want to serve whites.


When you make an argument, it's best to be consistent.


Basically you are saying it's ok to force a doctor to work, but not a baker.

We can tweek it a bit to make it over religious freedom..how about a Orthodox Jewish doctor letting a Christian bleed out because that particular Christian eats pork and is thereby unclean?

It does say in the bible not to eat pork, eating pork was a choice, not only will the doctor have to serve him, but will literally have to put his hands on, possibly in, him, and will likely get at least his covering clothes partly splattered with his blood.

[FunkyPertwee]

When you make an argument, it's best to be consistent.


Basically you are saying it's ok to force a doctor to work, but not a baker.

We can tweek it a bit to make it over religious freedom..how about a Orthodox Jewish doctor letting a Christian bleed out because that particular Christian eats pork and is thereby unclean?

It does say in the bible not to eat pork, eating pork was a choice, not only will the doctor have to serve him, but will literally have to put his hands on, possibly in, him, and will likely get at least his covering clothes partly splattered with his blood.

Go read my other posts and figure it out.

I want you to you to use your brain to try and figure out the difference between letting a man bleed out and baking him a cake.

Fuck you for calling me inconsistent.

[Kadmos]

Go read my other posts and figure it out.

I want you to you to use your brain to try and figure out the difference between letting a man bleed out and baking him a cake.

Yep, I'm clear on it. It's ok to dismiss the religious rights of a doctor, but not a baker.

Was it because the doctor was Jewish, or merely that it was a matter of life or death? ;)



Fuck you for calling me inconsistent.

Sorry, but you are being inconsistent.

How can it be better that one man loses his eternal soul (in his opinion), than another loses his life (which, lets face it, he was going to do sooner or later either way)?

You are basically saying, it's ok to deny someone their religious freedom, so long as you personally find the stakes to be high enough.

Or conversely, it's ok to deny someone else civil rights, so long as it really isn't all that important (wedding cake).

[FunkyPertwee]

Yep, I'm clear on it. It's ok to dismiss the religious rights of a doctor, but not a baker.

Was it because the doctor was Jewish, or merely that it was a matter of life or death? ;)




Sorry, but you are being inconsistent.

How can it be better that one man loses his eternal soul (in his opinion), than another loses his life (which, lets face it, he was going to do sooner or later either way)?

You are basically saying, it's ok to deny someone their religious freedom, so long as you personally find the stakes to be high enough.

Or conversely, it's ok to deny someone else civil rights, so long as it really isn't all that important (wedding cake).

What philosophy is it that you follow to the tee, that informs your every decision so profoundly that you never have to weigh the value of one result against another?

[Kadmos]

What philosophy is it that you follow to the tee, that informs your every decision so profoundly that you never have to weigh the value of one result against another?

Exactly.

The doctor, and the baker, both make the decision to serve the community, to practice their chosen profession within the bounds of the law, and according to the values of their beliefs.

If those are in conflict then they get to chose which takes priority. And either way they chose there may (likely will) be consequences.

If they chose their religious beliefs, and determine that their religious beliefs do not allow them to work in that field as it contradicts civil law, then they need to chose a new profession.

The doctor has no more right than the baker, the baker no more than the doctor.

And both have the right to say "This law conflicts with my religious beliefs, therefore I will find other employment" (Or, I suppose, a different religion...their choice)
Equality under the law.

[FunkyPertwee]

I'm bored of you.

And I've run out of respect for any law that supports YOUR violation of civil rights.

[Kadmos]

I'm bored of you.

And I've run out of respect for any law that supports YOUR violation of civil rights.

That's cool, I get it logic is hard.

And when someone points out your particular hypocrisy it's frustrating.

Anyway...nice chatting with you, have a good one.

[FunkyPertwee]

That's cool, I get it logic is hard.

And when someone points out your particular hypocrisy it's frustrating.

Anyway...nice chatting with you, have a good one.

No worries bro. Enjoy your cake.



http://volkundvaterland.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/hitlers50thbdaycake.jpg

[Kadmos]

Thanks, I do love me some cake ;)

[Pat Garrett]

Kadmos,

With all due respect, there is a difference between need and want. A very big difference.

A person, normal or queer, may NEED the services of a physician, paramedic, attorney, etc.

A person wants a cake.

No service provider should ever deny any person's needs. That's a given.

But if I owned a bakery, and some person wanted me to make a wedding cake with two queers in tuxedos on top, I would refuse. I would shut down my business before I would bend to NAZI Gestapo shit like that.

My basic personal religious and philosophical freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment. My refusal to work for that person's wants is my freedom of expression against everything that he has chosen to do and be.

The SCOTUS has ruled that a commie is protected in desecrating our Flag by the 1A. In the same manner, my freedom of "expression" to protest the mockery of Judeo-Christian marriage by refusing to provide a service that enables that mockery is MY 1A RIGHT!

We need to decide, in this country, whether we wish to have a strong 1A or not. I do not wish to give up my right to protest.

And that is exactly what Gov. Brewer is asking for. Give up your 1A to go whoring after the money the NFL will bring in. That is utterly disgusting.

[Kadmos]

Kadmos,

With all due respect, there is a difference between need and want. A very big difference.

A person, normal or queer, may NEED the services of a physician, paramedic, attorney, etc.

A person wants a cake.

No service provider should ever deny any person's needs. That's a given.


Got it, and who determines what is need and what is want? The state?

Essentially you are saying something to the effect of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ;)



Being serious though, what does need/want have to do with it?

A professional offers their service up to society, for a price. Is it right that they can offer this to one segment of society but not another? And based on what?

There are some things that society looks at and says "This is simply unfair", for instance not allowing a certain class of people to be served based on personal prejudice. Especially when it is the exact same service that this person is willing to provide another person.


But if I owned a bakery, and some person wanted me to make a wedding cake with two queers in tuxedos on top, I would refuse. I would shut down my business before I would bend to NAZI Gestapo shit like that.

And you have the right to do that. Just as you have the right to shut down rather than serve blacks, or Muslims, etc.

You call it "Nazi Gestapo shit", most think of it as the opposite...not allowing discriminatory policies meant to segregate people.


My basic personal religious and philosophical freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment. My refusal to work for that person's wants is my freedom of expression against everything that he has chosen to do and be.

I totally agree with you, you have the first amendment right to believe or say pretty much whatever you like.

However, that may result in the loss of your business. That would be your choice.

But don't worry, it won't result in the loss of your 1st amendment right.


The SCOTUS has ruled that a commie is protected in desecrating our Flag by the 1A.

Or even a capitalist, or a Christian, or a doctor, or baker


In the same manner, my freedom of "expression" to protest the mockery of Judeo-Christian marriage by refusing to provide a service that enables that mockery is MY 1A RIGHT!

Currently, in most places, it kinda does. But only because gays aren't a protected class, yet.

It's still just as morally repugnant as not serving black people, but legally, mostly, you're ok, for now.


We need to decide, in this country, whether we wish to have a strong 1A or not. I do not wish to give up my right to protest.

You can still protest. You are more than able to walk down the street holding a sign that says whatever Anti-gay or anti-Semitic or anti-etc slogan that you want.

But Monday morning, if it's your job, you still have to serve Jews, Blacks, Muslims, or Women, coffee, just like you would for Whites or Asians, or whatever.

[Durangokid]

In June 1995 SCOTUS ruled that sponsors of the St. Patrick's Day Parade could ban Homosexual inclusion. This continued argument that personal believes are not protected in America is simply not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/20/us/supreme-court-boston-march-high-court-lets-parade-boston-bar-homosexuals.html

[Kadmos]

In June 1995 SCOTUS ruled that sponsors of the St. Patrick's Day Parade could ban Homosexual inclusion. This continued argument that personal believes are not protected in America is simply not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/20/us/supreme-court-boston-march-high-court-lets-parade-boston-bar-homosexuals.html

No one is saying that your personal beliefs are not protected. We aren't talking about some sort of dystopic "thought police".

Your thoughts, beliefs, and even your speech is protected.

Only some of your actions are not. Sorry, but you cannot stone gays to death because you think they are an abomination. Nor can you refuse service to black people at your restaurant because you think they are "less than full human beings".

You can believe they are less than fully human, and you can march down the street saying so, but if you have a business then you have to serve them.

[Durangokid]

That is weaving a non-issue into this debate. No one has advocated killing anyone. There has been nothing said about anyone being non-human. The point in this law was forcing a business owner to perform an act which he may find abhorrent. That could be 2 males in suggestive positions on a wedding cake. If you read the Arizona law it is different than what has been reported in the media.

[Kadmos]

That is weaving a non-issue into this debate. No one has advocated killing anyone. There has been nothing said about anyone being non-human.

I should hope not.

My point was we are talking about action, not belief, thought, or speech.



The point in this law was forcing a business owner to perform an act which he may find abhorrent. That could be 2 males in suggestive positions on a wedding cake.

Unless the baker already puts people in sexually suggestive poses on top of wedding cakes, then this is a non-issue.

The baker can say "I don't do sex poses", just like the baker can say "I don't do swastikas, crosses, stars of David, the word "Nigga", the word "Happy", any numbers, or octopi"

Just like the photographer can say "I don't do nudes, porn, sexually suggestive poses, or pictures of kids or animals"

There is nothing wrong (or illegal) with that.

[jet3534]

That is weaving a non-issue into this debate. No one has advocated killing anyone. There has been nothing said about anyone being non-human. The point in this law was forcing a business owner to perform an act which he may find abhorrent. That could be 2 males in suggestive positions on a wedding cake. If you read the Arizona law it is different than what has been reported in the media.

They are not prevented from voting, lynched, forced to ride in the back of the bus, attacked by police dogs, forced to drink from gay water fountains, etc. -- yet liberals such as our friend Kad believe gay is the new black. How hurtful it must have been for some gays to have a baker refuse to make them a cake.

[Pat Garrett]

So Kad,

If you own a business, and you hire several gentiles to work for you, then the government should force you to serve bacon and ham in your company cafeteria?

Even though it violates your deeply held religious beliefs?

Or if a muslim opens a shop and hires a female employee, and remember he can't discriminate in hiring, he should be forced to tolerate her dressing like a whore??

Exactly where does this "Freedom FROM Religion" philosophy end? The Constitution says freedom "OF" religion.

Do you really believe that Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, or even Jack Kennedy would have appointed an "out in the open" queer to a cabinet post???

[Durangokid]

Now, Kad you are getting down to the issue. You are now agreeing with the Arizona law. An artisan a baker or a candlestick maker should be able to refuse participating in any act he finds contradictory to his convictions. This is exactly what is set forth in the law.

[Kadmos]

So Kad,

If you own a business, and you hire several gentiles to work for you, then the government should force you to serve bacon and ham in your company cafeteria?

Even though it violates your deeply held religious beliefs?



Wow, you really missed the nail right on the head there.

If it's a service you wouldn't do for one group, then you don't have to do it for another.

In your first example, if I were to only serve bacon to non-jews, then I would be breaking the law.

But so long as I don't serve bacon to anyone, I'm fine.

Or if I will bake a cake with a star of David on it for Jews, then I have to be willing to bake a cake with a star of David on it for Muslims as well.

But if I don't bake cakes with crosses or crescents on them for Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or anyone else...than that is fine, I'm not compelled to.


Or if a muslim opens a shop and hires a female employee, and remember he can't discriminate in hiring, he should be forced to tolerate her dressing like a whore??

No, he can set the dress code (within the bounds of the law).

It's not sexist to say "You have to wear a long sleeve closed neck top, and your bottom (skirt or pants) must go down to the top of the shoe".....so long as the male employees don't "get to" walk around in just a G-string.

[Durangokid]

Arizona SB1062 would not have provided protection against discrimination. Arizona does not have a law protecting Homosexuals from discrimination. The law was to protect people who have religious convictions from entering into what they may consider "pornography"{my description}.
The Religious Protection Act was a political football for the NFL and the ACLU. Liberal Republicans also ganged up on Gov. Brewer to make points. McCain and Romney sided with the Homosexuals.

[Kadmos]

Now, Kad you are getting down to the issue. You are now agreeing with the Arizona law. An artisan a baker or a candlestick maker should be able to refuse participating in any act he finds contradictory to his convictions. This is exactly what is set forth in the law.

Which they can do already.

Although, it may cost them their business, if the courts disagree and determine that the act they were asked to do didn't "substantially burden their exercise of religion."


Arizona SB1062 would not have provided protection against discrimination. Arizona does not have a law protecting Homosexuals from discrimination. The law was to protect people who have religious convictions from entering into what they may consider "pornography"{my description}.
The Religious Protection Act was a political football for the NFL and the ACLU. Liberal Republicans also ganged up on Gov. Brewer to make points. McCain and Romney sided with the Homosexuals.

Yes. And you are absolutely correct if you are thinking this entire thing was blown way out of proportion and wildly misrepresented by the media.

No, the law didn't "make it ok to discriminate", it clarified the defense against lawsuits that already exists when matters of religious freedom clash with civil liberties or state laws. Laws that do, and should, favor religious freedom.

It doesn't mean the person claiming the issue was one of religious freedom will necessarily win that argument, but it clarified what the argument will mean in practice.

It did so in a way that could be considered stepping on the rights of certain groups, gays, divorced people, unwed mothers, etc. Which was why it became a political nightmare.

[Durangokid]

I respectfully must challenge your quoting of amendments regarding the Arizona law. The law was specific as written. You can not simply just add or amend the text to create an imaginary law suite.

There are no mention of "Same Sex Couples" or inferences or references. It is simply a support venue for the 1999 Arizona Bill protecting religious worship and adherence from government intrusion.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

[Kadmos]

I respectfully must challenge your quoting of amendments regarding the Arizona law. The law was specific as written. You can not simply just add or amend the text to create an imaginary law suite.

What I'm saying is the law didn't address any specific lawsuit. The law was intended to provide a defense in a court of law if someone were sued for refusing to serve someone because of their religious beliefs.

In actuality, such a law already exists, both in the state of Az, and federal law.

SB1062 tried to amend that already existing law to cover any individuals (or legal entities) claiming religious conflict with any state law and allow a person to claim the religious freedom defense when the government wasn't one of the parties of the lawsuit.

In reality I'll admit the whole thing is silly as hell. It's already legal in Az to discriminate against homosexuals. And a law protecting your right to claim religious freedom if anyone sues you for....well, basically anything, already exists.

Nor does this law specifically mention gays.

In terms of actual effect of the law, there barely was one. Like I said, there is already a law doing that, it's not illegal to do, and this rather fine point of law hardly would have changed anything all that much either way.

[ltorlo64]

Obviously there are good laws, and there are bad laws.

Did you read the law or just what the MSM wrote about the law?

[Durangokid]

Thank you. That is exactly what I have been posting. No Homosexuals were to be executed or imprisoned by this legislation. The "Flamming" of any reform makes it impossible to pass any meaningful legislation. If any one would take time to read and clearly understand the law none of this would have been an issue. :nono:

[l921428x]

Thank you. That is exactly what I have been posting. No Homosexuals were to be executed or imprisoned by this legislation. The "Flamming" of any reform makes it impossible to pass any meaningful legislation. If any one would take time to read and clearly understand the law none of this would have been an issue. :nono:

Arizona did the same with the immigrant bill a few months back, wrote a law that mirrored federal law when they could not get help from.gov. Quite a few years ago, 10 maybe more, the NFL used a club on Az when they did not want a MLK day. I see a pattern. Homosexual marriage coming to a Baptist church near you. Like abortion and the Catholic church. just sayin.

[davepool]

The MSM really hates us, they need to back off and go after the really evil bastards in Texas :)